
Lain, the Whom of the Verb World - samclemens
http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2015/03/09/lain-the-whom-of-the-verb-world/
======
gilgoomesh
An interesting article but frustrating to read as a non-linguist/grammaticist.

While it's about the incorrect usage of the word "lain", the article only
actually uses "lain" correctly once in a sentence ("Those skeletons had lain
under that supermarket for centuries"). Additionally, the article uses but
doesn't really define the terms "transitive" or "past participle"; ignorance
of which are the key sources of confusion for regular speakers.

~~~
jordigh
I was going to respond with an explanation of the obscure terms, but I'm sure
without looking that Wikipedia can do a better job than I.

Instead, I would like to exhort you and everyone else to take an interest in
linguistics[1]. I really wish we could replace our 12 years of mathematical
education, which I think is overall quite useless[2], with 12 years of
linguistic education. If we spent 12 years learning how all of the world's
languages work, I also think we would go a long way to reduce xenophobia and
racism. [3]

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't want people to learn how to speak correctly.
I want people to expand their innate curiosity for just how goddam smart
humans are at languages. Like the article said, the unusual thing isn't that
we can't keep lie/lay/lied/lain/laid straight, but that we can keep almost
everything else straight. Language is a unique human phenomenon. We have
opposable thumbs, but so do monkeys, and elephants are quite handy (haha!)
with their trunks. Even a raven can use tools, but no other animal exhibits
the breadth of ability of language that we do. Birdsongs are complicated and
maybe even culturally transmitted, but they can't be used to dictate laws or
record writing or persuade others as I am now trying to persuade you.[4]

Linguistics is a science: it proceeds by gathering empirical data of how
humans speak, then formulates hypotheses that will predict how they will
speak, and confirms or denies these hypotheses. What more interesting object
of study than ourselves! Language is something we all do on a daily basis,
spontaneously, naturally. Ever wondered why we do it the way we do it?

Sadly, the beauty of this science is clouded behind the way it is taught today
in schools, along with a jargon that further distances some of us from the
actual object of study. To the prescriptivist grammarians, I say their
objective is as futile as trying to educate ants on architecture: ants will
build anthills as they see fit. But for the jargon, I am sad to say that some
of it is inevitable, because we need the lens of analysis and classification
in order to see the true attraction of our linguistic abilities.

Transitive or intransitive verbs don't occur only in English: virtually every
human language has something like them. Participles are less universal, but
they are also not a uniquely English phenomenon. But why does this happen? Why
does every known language have verbs but only some has participles? Why do
humans craft languages as they do? Therein lies the science! (or lays?)

So, try to learn some linguistic jargon. Underneath it lies a very interesting
set of concepts that describe an ability that uniquely characterises our
species. :-)

\----

[1] The language log is a good place to start finding interesting things:

[http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/)

[2] Particularly when calculus is the ultimate goal of elementary mathematical
education. When was the last time you or most adults around you had an urgent
need for calculus? Can you even state, say, Rolle's theorem without looking it
up?

[3] For example, did you know that ebonics has way more verb tenses that
express very nuanced moments in time, nuances which standard English lacks?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_En...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English#Tense_and_aspect)

[4] Here is a pretty interesting that theorises that human language may have
evolved from some characteristics found in birdsong!

[http://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-language-evolved-
birdsong...](http://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-language-evolved-
birdsong.html)

~~~
stdbrouw
> I really wish we could replace our 12 years of mathematical education, which
> I think is overall quite useless[2], with 12 years of linguistic education

I wonder why it is that people can never just say "you, know, X is quite
important and maybe deserves more of our attention" and instead have to go all
bombastic and pretend "X is the most important thing in the world and our
modern society couldn't exist without it".

~~~
jordigh
I do enjoy bombasticness.

~~~
twic
Bombasticity?

It's probably actually just 'bombast', isn't it?

~~~
jordigh
Bombasticitinessation.

------
jzelinskie
Did anyone else immediately think of Serial Experiments Lain[0]?

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Experiments_Lain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Experiments_Lain)

~~~
e12e
Yes. I'm not sure if describing that as the "Verb World" is strangely
accurate, or just strange ... should we adopt it as another term for immerse
object-oriented, programmable, mediated, augmented and virtual reality? It has
a nice ring to it: Come join us in the Verb World.

~~~
lnanek2
Java and OOP in general are already famous for being made fun of as the
Kingdom of Nouns. So it would be funny to call something built with the
Kingdom of Nouns as Verb World, lol.

~~~
e12e
I was thinking more along the lines of smalltalk/croquet, and the Alan Kay
quote/talk "Doing with images makes symbols". But yeah, if all you have are
nouns, great lack of verbing also.

~~~
Zuider
\- Object Oriented Programming, where the nouns modestly conceal their verbs
in their underwear.

\- Functional programming - refusing to change your underwear for fear of
getting your knickers in a twist.

------
DanielBMarkham
As a native English speaker, and somebody who loves writing and languages, I
grok most grammar discussions without thinking about the terms involved. Lay,
lie, and so forth come fairly naturally to me. For example, if I really
thought about it, I believe I would have spotted all the bad lie-forms in the
songs the writer mentions.

But some things still bug me. What's the difference between "will" and
"shall"? "Farther" and "further" still get mixed up in my writing even though
I know better. Every few months I'll find myself typing in something quickly
online and use a homophone "their" for "they're" \-- which I absolutely know
not to do! Some of these formations you only come across maybe once a year or
so.

It's like one other commenter said here, it's not that the oddball cases are
so complex, it's amazing that we manage to remember all the rest of it.

~~~
pluma
I am not a native speaker, but isn't "will" vs "shall" simply about matter of
fact vs intent?

"I shall be king" implies you're actively setting events in motion that will
make you king. "I will be king" merely expresses confidence that you will
become king in the future (whether you know this to be a fact or are just
hoping this is how things will work out).

Likewise "you shall not suffer a witch to live" is a bit more direct than "you
should not" \-- it not only expresses a moral stance, it is a direct command.

Anyway. The wonderful thing about language is that is defined by how it's
used. If "carefully lain skeletons" becomes widely accepted, it becomes well-
formed English. _Whom_ knows what English will look a hundred years from now.

~~~
jks
Not a native speaker either, but "will" vs "shall" is awfully complicated, at
least if you try to speak Southern English:
[http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html](http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html)

For practical international usage, I was taught to always use "will", except
in first-person questions such as "shall we go?".

~~~
comex
Fascinating. As a native northern-US speaker, I literally had no idea how
these used to work until now. (I guess most people know this, but here the
sense you mentioned is the only one acceptable in speech; otherwise, "shall"
sounds more commanding than "will" but archaic; and "should" always means
"ought to".)

------
danellis
I've noticed that in the US, one will "lay down" in a bed. I have trouble
knowing how to reconcile this in my mind. Would one day that in American
English, a different dialect to British English, this is the correct usage?
Can dialects have distant grammar rules? Or can it only be considered a
colloquialism?

~~~
chias
My ex-girlfriend was just very nervous about saying "lie" because it's "bad".
So "I'm just going to go lay down on the couch" because "I'm not lying!".

Which results in amusing scenarios in which people don't realize that e.g.
this song is about sex:
[https://play.google.com/music/preview/Txqbmvyo63hydudrvpj3gf...](https://play.google.com/music/preview/Txqbmvyo63hydudrvpj3gfszl7q?lyrics=1)

~~~
Zuider
You have probably hit on the real reason for the odd choice of verb 'lain' in
the Guardian article - the sexual connotations of the word 'laid' (especially
in the context of bodies, and given that the location was in France).

I suspect that 'laid' was changed to 'lain' after the first draft was
submitted, possibly following some ribaldry from the copy editor and
colleagues.

