Not really, because the problem, presumably, persists, and so it’s not “in the past.” Otherwise, it would be something like this:
*What could/did one do, when the problem lay with the basic construction of the piece?
*
What an amazing response. Confusing, but amazing.
Thank you to everyone who contributed to the confusion — that’s sincere, not sarcastic — I think I get it now.
I run the construction budget for Amoco.
I have an ongoing responsibility for our construction spend.
The white marble has begun to fall off our building, endangering Cecil as he walks around Chicago. The marble needs replacing at a cost of $100 million dollars. It turns out the chairman’s wife picked out the marble for use as a facing, but it is not an appropriate material. She no longer has a role in choosing our building materials.
The Amoco Board has assigned me a budget of $50 million annually for our company-wide construction budget.
They send me an inquiry about my need for $100 million. “No excuses,” they say. “We must keep our spending under control.”
I come before the Board.
“Folks, even for an oil company, this is real money. But what does one do when a problem lay with the chairman letting his wife pick out the siding material? What’s done is done. We are just going to have to deal with the consequences.”
PS: I have a carved marble telephone in my display case made from that Amoco building marble facing. A memento of days gone by.
Thanks, Bonnie!
So I was wrong. I thought I was catching on, but I was mistaken. Would you then say, “The problem **lies **with the chairman letting his wife choose building materials.”?
I don’t get it.
Of course this is conceivable, but it’s not really necessary. If you went river rafting over the weekend, you can say, “I enjoyed it. Rafting was fun.” Or you can say, “I enjoyed it. Rafting is fun.” In the case of the building materials, yes, it was a problematic course of action to allow the chair’s wife to pick them at that time. But it’s also problematic now, because now the company faces a difficult decision in the present. Either way, a gerund phrase (letting his wife…or rafting) reflects no tense in and of itself.
It’s pointless to stretch out the possibilities like this when the OP hasn’t bothered to give the complete context of the discourse, nor the fundamental purpose of the writer. As is typical with this kind of thread here in this message board, people have to go around making all kinds of speculation about a single sentence which has been presented as though it existed in a vacuum. Language is never in a vacuum.
Well, we won’t be able to help you get it until you at least make the effort to provide some context.
It’s pretty simple, really. Stop looking at it as a question around which formulation is correct and understand that both formulations are correct depending on the nuance of what you are trying to say. And like all communication there are layers of nuances.
If the problem being referred to is over and done with, use the past tense. If the problem being referred to is current, use the present tense.
In the Amoco example I gave you, there are two issues (two problems).
The first issue is that we are over budget and I am responsible for that budget. This is a current problem and because it is current I say, “What does one do…”
The second issue is that the problem which caused it occurred in the past, and that’s why it lay in the past. (The notion of a problem “lying” anywhere is a bit of an idiom.)
If I say, “what does one do when a problem lay with the chairman letting his wife pick out the siding material?” and I am trying to ask what we should do now when the underlying problem which caused our pickle is in the past and cannot be rectified, the answer is things like “Just find the money. It has to be done” or “Don’t blame me I am the messenger.” Or perhaps I am using the phrase to ask rhetorically what should be done about a problem which can no longer be addressed because it happened in the past–in that case, the answer is “Nothing.”
Now perhaps I want to convey that we need to address that prior problem. Perhaps I feel there is something about it that can still be addressed. I might say, “What does one do when a problem lies with the chairman letting his wife pick out the siding material?” Now the nuance is slightly changed. Perhaps there is a recourse still available (e.g. create a formal policy where only an architecture committee can specify materials).
I wouldn’t go crazy parsing out my examples. They are just off the top of my head, and all communication is imperfect. But both ways of phrasing your OP are grammatically correct, and each can be argued to convey slightly different nuances.
I’ve learned something new here today.
I always thought of it as
People lie
and
animals lay
For instance, when I was working as a prison guard and I was posted to “the hole”, I would sometimes tell the inmates: Lay down and lick your nuts" when they were bothering me. (see top)
Lie down and lick your nuts just never sounded grammatically correct to me.
No, your explanation was a little different. Just a bit.
I think it’s already been explained that there were two questions and either could be correct. (And it didn’t matter whether they were questions or statements.)
You have the right idea, guizot – that it doesn’t have to be in the form of a question. But it’s not the same problem anymore because you have combined the two questions – either of which was independently acceptable – into one sentence which you have chosen to write in the present tense by using the verb does know. The sentence then requires the use of the present tense lies.
You are absolutely right that this particular situation begs for context. But sentences can exist independently. And both of the sentences in the OP can be grammatically correct.
It is not a semantic issue, by the way. You may be thinking of syntax. It is a grammar question.
[quote=“Gus_Handsome, post:28, topic:506236”]
I’ve learned something new here today.
I always thought of it as
People lie
and
animals lay
QUOTE]
This is very wrong. Perhaps it’s because someone mentioned that chickens lay eggs and animals are unable to tell untruths.
It’s unfortunate that “lie” can be both an untruth or reclining, and that “lay” can be used in the present tense of putting something down or can be the past tense for reclining.
While it’s true Sally does not lay down (nor does her dog), she can certainly lay her weapons down and animals lie in the shade all the time.
There is only one question: What does one do…?
The rest (…when a problem lay with the basic construction of the piece…) is not a question. For the third time, it’s an adverbial clause. (See: Greenbaum, Sidney & Quirk, Randolph. A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. Hong Kong: Longman Group (FE) Ltd, 1990.)
This particular clause is in fact a dependent clause. The sentence:
*When the problem lay with the basic construction of the piece.
is not complete, because the adverbial clause depends upon the main clause (What does one do…?)
But that has nothing to do with OP’s concern.
Whatever this is supposed to mean, it, too, has nothing to do with OP’s concern.
Well, of course, but again, that has nothing to do with OP’s concern. The OP apparently is confused because the past form of lie is lay, and lay is also the base form of an entirely different verb from lie–so s/he, as many do, didn’t really know what question to ask.
In trying to answer OP’s question, some folks assumed that s/he was trying to decide whether to use a past form in the clause or not. Actually, it seems pretty clear that s/he, as so many do, simply wanted some clarification on which verb means: (OED, lie, v.1, II):
…which is clearly intransitive, and not transitive, as lay (the base verb, not the past form of lie) is:
I doubt the OP was trying to decide whether the problem was posed only in the past or not. (But as I said before, without more context, we can’t know this with absolute certainty, so the obvious truism that “sentences can exist independently” is not very helpful here.)
Incidentally, this confusion (when to use lie vs. lay appears prominently and dutifully in every freshman comp handbook I’ve taught with (from UCLA to La Univesridad del Norte, in Barranquilla, Colombia), along with confusion over effect vs. affect, complementary vs. complimentary, and so on.
All of this talk and speculation about interrogative or indicative, past or present, is just unnecessarily complicating a question which was simply answered in under five posts, and only served to further confuse the OP, by his/her own admission.
As for syntax, I have no idea where the hell that came from. The OP’s syntax seems just fine to me. and that was never an issue here. The OP’s question has to do with word choice (lie or lay), and therefore is a matter of the semantic:
While semantics and syntax intersect, as just about everything does, if anything at all, I was saying that whether a question is involved is irrelevant.
I didn’t get a Masters degree in linguistics by confusing semantics and syntax, thanks.
Yes. Or to put it more bluntly, it’s because our middle school English teachers were addicted to unhelpful cliches, and we have to spend half of our college years erasing them from our consciousness.
Certain otherwise “necessary” components of some constructions are commonly omitted because they’re so easily understood. Still, some verbs in English require not only objects (i.e., they’re transitive) but complements as well to be “correct” or “complete.” Put and lay are in this category. What you mean to say in the prison when you say “lay down” is “lay yourselves down.” The object (a reflexive pronoun) is so easily understood it’s not really necessary for the situation. But notice that down is “necessary” for it to sound “complete” to a native English speaker. You’d never say just, “Lay!” or “Lay yourselves!” Likewise, as a native speaker, you’d never say, “Put the chair!” Such restrictions may help some to understand when to use lay, as opposed to lie.