Don't lie to me.

It seems that many of you would like a refresher on lie vs. lay. We remember our teachers telling us that the words are easily confused, and we worry that we're doing it wrong, so instead of saying something like "lay the book over there," we'll use an entirely different word: "set the book over there."


The verbs "lie" and "lay" (in present tense) actually have different meanings. "Lie" is a physical action that humans and other living beings take for themselves, as in "I don't feel well; I am going to lie down for a bit."


"Lay" is the word we use for nonliving objects: "I need to lay this heavy box down!"


The problem is that "lie" uses "lay" as its past tense! "After I lay down for a bit, I felt a lot better!"


Ugh!


To help things out a bit, I'm going to explain "transitive" and "intransitive" verbs. One of the worst parts of grammar, in my opinion, is all of these "big" words that are used to describe the concepts. Whip out words like "subordinate" or "participle" or "transitive" and watch eyes glaze over!


A transitive verb takes an object. For instance, think about a verb like "gave". Whenever we use it, we want to know what was given, right?


"My friend gave _________________."


The noun that goes in the blank is something called a direct object. The terminology isn't super important right now.


Some verbs, though, are either intransitive or can be used as both. Let's use "moves" for this example."


"Steve moves quickly."


There is nothing that Steve moves in this case.


Going back to lie vs. lay, lie is an intransitive verb, because the subject is doing the lying himself.


"I need to lie down."


But with lay, there is an object involved. If I lay something down, I need to know what that object is. I can't just say, "I lay down." What did I lay down?


Here are the conjugations for lie for the first person:

Present: I lie down when I am tired.
Past: I lay down when I was tired.
Past Participle: I have lain down for many naps.
Present Participle: I am laying down right now!



Here are the conjugations for lay for the first person:

Present: I lay my keys on the counter. (Notice the object is "keys" in this sentence.)
Past: I laid my wallet nearby. (Object is "wallet".)
Past Participle: I have laid several acres of mulch. (Object is "acres".)
Present Participle: Don't let me forget; I am laying the needle here. (Object is "needle".)


Does that help? When you're trying to decide which to use, just think about whether you are using an object or referring to yourself. If you've got an object in mind, go for a conjugation of lay; if it's you that is going to become horizontal, use a conjugation of "lie."

Because, because, because, because.

First of all, I was getting all kinds of sad, thinking that no one read the fabulous new grammar blog since I'd never gotten a comment from it.

Sad. So very, very sad.

And just now, while playing with some of the settings, I realized that I'd never set it up to email the comments to me - and shock of all shocks - you like me! You really like me! And when I've been struggling to come up with grammar faux pas to include, there's actually been requests waiting for me!

Joy!

I plan on accommodating all of your requests in the next couple of days.

Before that, though, I need to address a fallacy of many misguided English teachers.

Every year, I have innumerable students protest one of my example sentences: "Ms. B! You can't start a sentence with 'because'."

"Um, no," I reply. "That's actually a lie."

Perhaps it is laziness, or perhaps it is a misunderstanding, but English teachers across the nation teach their students that sentences cannot begin with the word "because." Students only remember about five percent of what they are taught - it only figures that they'd remember one of the few blatantly incorrect statements.

First, in technical terms: "because" is a coordinating conjunction, used to start a subordinate adverb clause. It's a little redundant to use "subordinate" AND "adverb", since adverb clauses are by their nature subordinate.

To make this more understandable, think about "because" statements. You're trying to say that because something happen, something else was caused to happen. For instance, "Because I did not pay my bill, my electricity was cut off."

If I started my sentence with "because" and only included the subordinate clause, this is what I'd end up with: "Because I did not pay my bill." Unless that's the answer to the question "Why don't you have any electricity," your reader is going to want more information.

The issue isn't that sentences can't begin with "because"; it's that the first clause needs to be followed with more information.

Let me explain subordinate clauses a bit more while I'm on the subject. We have two major types of clauses in the English language: independent and subordinate. All clauses contain a subject and a verb. In the previous sentence, my subject is clauses and my verb is contain. I tell my students that independent clauses are grown-ups - they can go out by themselves, and they don't have a curfew. These are all independent clauses from The Awakening:

"The letter was right there at hand in the drawer of the little table."
"She placed it in Edna's hands."
"Mademoiselle played a soft interlude."

Subordinate clauses are like teenagers - they can't stay out by themselves. They work as a particular part of speech: noun, adjective, or adverb. They begin with one or two words that keep them from being independent clauses, such as "because", "which", or "who," so they always need to be attached to an independent clause. Clauses always have subjects and verbs, although the subject can sometimes be hard to find.

Adjective clause: The boy who failed the test needs to go to tutoring.

In that sentence, my independent/grown-up clause is "the boy needs to go to tutoring." My subject is boy; my verb is needs.

Notice, though, that I have another verb in there: failed. This is usually a good indication that there is another clause present.

The words "who failed the test" tells me about a noun - "the boy." See how it's working like an adjective by telling me about a noun? The subject of that adjective clause is "who."

Still following me?

Adverb clause: Although I wanted sushi, Anthony and I got pizza instead.

My independent clause is "Anthony and I got pizza instead."

Notice that "although I wanted sushi" does have a subject (I) and a verb (wanted), the word "although" keeps it from being a complete sentence.

Noun clauses are probably the hardest to identify because they require a bit more understanding into how the language works, since they often work as subjects or direct objects in a sentence. Here's an example:

Whoever wants to go fishing should board the bus now.

Notice that the whole phrase could easily be replaced with a pronoun (they) that is more clearly distinguishable as the subject of the sentence.

Whew. That's intense for one day. The adverb clause is the one that we'll come back to more often as the central issue for other common grammar errors. Any questions?

Red pen, please.

This is not so much of a lesson as it is a sharing of some grammar amusement. (Yes, it does exist.)

We stopped at a Taco Bell in Connecticut yesterday for a very late lunch (mmmm - Cheesy Gordita Crunch.... I have a weakness for Taco Bell.) Of course, since we were on a road trip, we used the facilities.

Imagine our disappointment, consternation (just wanted to use that word, really), and hysterical laughter when we saw the following sign on the door to the restroom:

"Bathroom lights are not working right now, sorry for your unconvinced."

*snicker*

Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

Sorry that it's been a while - I've been waiting for some inspiration from a messageboard, and Craigslist just came through yet again.

I often see students and other people write something like this: "I should of taken the expressway home instead of the local road."

The problem is "should of." If we think about the grammatical construction, we realize that it doesn't make sense. "Of" is actually a preposition, and prepositions always need to be followed by a noun, which is called the object of a preposition. For instance, you wouldn't say "I sat under." You'd want to include what you sat under - that's the object of the preposition "under."

When people write "should of", "could of", or "would of", they actually mean to write a contraction: "should've", "could've" or "would've". This means should have. Say the contraction out loud. It sounds like should of. That's why people make the error.

There's never a time when someone should write "should of."

*blank* my interest.

I couldn't figure out what to blog about yesterday - or, rather, how to narrow down all of the different ideas that I want to cover.

And then, I was watching TV in the evening and heard *really* common error that I see ALL of the time on messageboards. One of the things I plan to tackle in this blog are commonly misspelled or confused words.

It's not unusual to see something like this: "The commercial really peaked my interest."

Can anyone spot the error?

When we're trying to say that our interest has been stirred, we should be using the word piqued.

"Peak" as a verb means to bring to the greatest point of development, as in "Sales peaked during the holiday season."