Zompist Bboard Again

"Lay" to me is fine as the past tense of "lie" in the second sense; I don't know any alternative to "I lay down". Respectively the past participles are "laid", "lain", and "laid".

alice wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:37 pm "Lay" to me is fine as the past tense of "lie" in the second sense; I don't know any alternative to "I lay down". Respectively the past participles are "laid", "lain", and "laid".

'Lay' as a simple past of 'lie' in the second sense has a very formal, literary sound to me; even in my high register speech I would not use it this way. The past participle 'lain' is even more like this to me.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:55 pm

alice wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:37 pm "Lay" to me is fine as the past tense of "lie" in the second sense; I don't know any alternative to "I lay down". Respectively the past participles are "laid", "lain", and "laid".

'Lay' as a simple past of 'lie' in the second sense has a very formal, literary sound to me; even in my high register speech I would not use it this way.

I don't think I knew it was even possible before today.

jcb wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:06 pm How do people here use and conjugate "lie" and "lay"?

For me, to lie 'to present an alternative reality' has principal parts lie, lied, lied, and the other two one-word inflections are lies and lying.

For me, to lie 'to rest as on a surface (intransitive)' has principal parts lie, lay (occasionally laid), lain, and the other two one-word inflections are lies and lying.

For me, to lay 'to rest as on a surface (transitive)' has principal parts lay, laid, laid. and the other two one-word inflections are lays and laying, except that the three principal parts may occasionally be replaced by lie, laid, lain etc. I don't deliberately write *layed.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:55 pm

alice wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:37 pm "Lay" to me is fine as the past tense of "lie" in the second sense; I don't know any alternative to "I lay down". Respectively the past participles are "laid", "lain", and "laid".

'Lay' as a simple past of 'lie' in the second sense has a very formal, literary sound to me; even in my high register speech I would not use it this way. The past participle 'lain' is even more like this to me.

I agree with you about "lay" as past tense of "lie", but "lain" sounds okay to me as the past participle, but I'm not sure I use it much.

alice wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:37 pm "Lay" to me is fine as the past tense of "lie" in the second sense; I don't know any alternative to "I lay down". Respectively the past participles are "laid", "lain", and "laid".

For the past participles, did you mean lied, lain and layed?

As an intransitive action, as opposed to a state, I lay down is open to interference from the reflexive I laid myself down, and Late Modern English doesn't otherwise use the FACE vowel to mark a simple past.

Generally speaking, when people who use English address each other by their surnames, they also use some kind of formal address ("Mr", "Ms"), or honorific ("Doctor", "Captain", ""Reverend"). Using only the surname seems to be rare. But my impression is that there are two contexts where that form of address might be used: 1) in military forces, as a way superior officers or NCOs address people under their command, and 2) at the more exclusive British schools, as a way how different students, err, I mean, pupils address each other if they really can't stand each other.

Is that about right?

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 7:46 am Generally speaking, when people who use English address each other by their surnames, they also use some kind of formal address ("Mr", "Ms"), or honorific ("Doctor", "Captain", ""Reverend"). Using only the surname seems to be rare. But my impression is that there are two contexts where that form of address might be used: 1) in military forces, as a way superior officers or NCOs address people under their command, and 2) at the more exclusive British schools, as a way how different students, err, I mean, pupils address each other if they really can't stand each other.

Is that about right?

Note that in the military, one would normally use someone's rank with their last name rather than their last name in isolation.

As for kids in school, I remember when I was in school there was a kid who was always known by Neumann; I don't even remember his first name.

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 7:46 am Generally speaking, when people who use English address each other by their surnames, they also use some kind of formal address ("Mr", "Ms"), or honorific ("Doctor", "Captain", ""Reverend"). Using only the surname seems to be rare. But my impression is that there are two contexts where that form of address might be used: 1) in military forces, as a way superior officers or NCOs address people under their command, and 2) at the more exclusive British schools, as a way how different students, err, I mean, pupils address each other if they really can't stand each other.

Is that about right?

Pretty much. I'd add that refering to people by only their family name has more use than addressing them by it. Like, if a public figure is being spoken of over and over, as in a news story, nobody needs to repeat the given name. Other than that, anything else is an outlier, like a nickname.

Also, Travis i've unblocked you.

Starbeam wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 12:46 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 7:46 am Generally speaking, when people who use English address each other by their surnames, they also use some kind of formal address ("Mr", "Ms"), or honorific ("Doctor", "Captain", ""Reverend"). Using only the surname seems to be rare. But my impression is that there are two contexts where that form of address might be used: 1) in military forces, as a way superior officers or NCOs address people under their command, and 2) at the more exclusive British schools, as a way how different students, err, I mean, pupils address each other if they really can't stand each other.

Is that about right?

Pretty much. I'd add that refering to people by only their family name has more use than addressing them by it. Like, if a public figure is being spoken of over and over, as in a news story, nobody needs to repeat the given name. Other than that, anything else is an outlier, like a nickname.

I would say that it is much more common to refer to people in the third person just by their last name than it is to address them by it.

Starbeam wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 12:46 pm Also, Travis i've unblocked you.

Thanks.

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 7:46 am Generally speaking, when people who use English address each other by their surnames, they also use some kind of formal address ("Mr", "Ms"), or honorific ("Doctor", "Captain", ""Reverend"). Using only the surname seems to be rare. But my impression is that there are two contexts where that form of address might be used: 1) in military forces, as a way superior officers or NCOs address people under their command, and 2) at the more exclusive British schools, as a way how different students, err, I mean, pupils address each other if they really can't stand each other.

Is that about right?

I have no clue on the military, but in Britain bare surnames are a lot more common. In schools it is mainly a disambiguation strategy when multiple pupils have the same first name, and Mr/M(r/∅/is)s is either very formal or, back in school, how you'd refer to teachers.

I'd add that a more old-fashioned boss might use surnames. "Henderson, where is the leads file?" I worked in software, though, and everyone referred to each other by first name.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 3:19 pm I have no clue on the military, but in Britain bare surnames are a lot more common. In schools it is mainly a disambiguation strategy when multiple pupils have the same first name, and Mr/M(r/∅/is)s is either very formal or, back in school, how you'd refer to teachers.

Just over half a century ago, at a mixed grammar school in England, the general rule was surnames for boys and forenames for girls, just from fellow pupils and from teachers. The rule of thumb I had was that the academically top 25% went to grammar school. Boys might use forenames amongst themselves, but that was more a sign of friendship or of having been in the same primary school. At primary school, pupils used forenames amongst themselves.

Over the years, that seems to have morphed to forenames for all pupils. Additionally, state secondary education has gone comprehensive.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 5:23 pm I'd add that a more old-fashioned boss might use surnames. "Henderson, where is the leads file?" I worked in software, though, and everyone referred to each other by first name.

At my job (which is in software engineering) everyone addresses each other by first name except that the head boss of the MR Recon team is universally known by a clipped version of his last name (and that is never with Mr. or like either), such that I have never heard anyone address or even refer to him either by his full first name or last name, and I suspect some people may not even know his first name off the to of their heads.

However, it is common to refer to certain people by both first name and last name together in addition to just by first name (but no one ever calls anyone else on the team by just their last name, and no one uses titles like Mr.).

Thank you for your replies, everyone!

How do people here pronounce "ask" and "asked"?

I have /{sk/ and /{st/, respectively. The /k/ is totally elided in the latter.

jcb wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 2:34 am How do people here pronounce "ask" and "asked"?

I have /{sk/ and /{st/, respectively. The /k/ is totally elided in the latter.

I'm with you. Keeping the "k" in the past tense/participle requires conscious thought

jcb wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 2:34 am How do people here pronounce "ask" and "asked"?

I have /{sk/ and /{st/, respectively. The /k/ is totally elided in the latter.

I have /æs(k)/ [ɛs(k)] and /æst/ [ɛsʲtʲ] myself; my difference from you is I may drop the /k/ in ask in everyday speech.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 10:12 amAs for kids in school, I remember when I was in school there was a kid who was always known by Neumann; I don't even remember his first name.

Maybe it was his first? Seems quite common for Americans to have a surname as first name (the CEO of the software company we use software from is called Woodson Martin).

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 7:46 amat the more exclusive British schools, as a way how different students, err, I mean, pupils address each other if they really can't stand each other.

Seems to be/have been an American thing to? Iirc, in Back to the Future, Biff regularly calls George McFly just "McFly"?


JAL

jal wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 9:29 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Oct 04, 2025 10:12 amAs for kids in school, I remember when I was in school there was a kid who was always known by Neumann; I don't even remember his first name.

Maybe it was his first? Seems quite common for Americans to have a surname as first name (the CEO of the software company we use software from is called Woodson Martin).

It is not common to use German last names as first names here in the US, though, as last names-as-first names are typically English, Scottish, or Irish and not German here, whereas Neumann really is not unusual as a last name here (this is Wisconsin after all).

(One thing to remember is that there is still a subliminal divide between English, Scottish, and Irish people on one hand and 'ethnic' Whites such as Germans, Poles, Italians, and Norwegians here in the US that may not be visible from without the US. This is reflected by things like how 'ethnic' White names are normally not adopted as pen names by authors here in the US, and often people with 'ethnic' White names will actually adopt an English, Scottish, or Irish pen name when they write.)