Resources
Lie, Lay, and All That
Lie This to Rest?
By Evan Jenkins
No, of course not. But the confusion between “lie” and “lay” was different and subtler in a passage that said someone who maneuvered for a job too overtly “did not do what a shrewd operator would do and lay low.”
Someone was thinking of the expression “to lie low,” meaning to hunker down, make oneself inconspicuous. Introduced by “did not,” as it was in the example, the verb required the present tense: the job candidate “did not ... lie low.”
“To lie” means to rest, be at rest, repose, or just exist on or in some place (“the fault lies with the captain, not the crew”) or in some condition or position (lie low, lie down). “Lay” is the past tense of “lie” — she lay low for awhile. The past perfect tense uses the participle, “lain” — until that day, she had lain low. Thus we have:
Lie, lay, lain.
Probably because its past tense is “lay,” the word is often confused with ...
... “To lay,” meaning to put or place something somewhere (including to bring forth an egg). It takes an object — lay that pistol down, babe — and no form of “to lie” does. (Well, “lie your heart out,” but that’s another “lie.”) The past tense of “lay” is “laid,” and so is its past perfect tense, and the trio is:
Lay, laid, laid.
The failure to distinguish between “lie” and “lay” is widely considered illiterate, yet it’s surprisingly common. Is the only answer rote memorization? Seems so, but anyone with a mnemonic trick that has helped avoid the confusion is welcome to send it along.
Addendum, Aug. 4, 1999
The murder suspect, the article reported, “laid low, escaping suspicion...” He didn’t put something (except himself) someplace, so he “lay low.” Lie, lay, lain. (If someone had knocked him out in a barroom brawl, we might say he’d been “laid low.” At his funeral, he’d have been “laid to rest.” Lay, laid, laid.)
CJR
