Yeah but people aren’t computing machines so sorry I’ll stick with human language and its logical “flaws”. I suspect my side will prevail, but you can still enjoy your superior logic and intelligence without us.
One of my pet peeve is less/fewer. It sounds wrong. However, I know it appears to be an inevitable change in the making.
The lie/lay distinction goes clear back to Proto-Indo-European. It derives from a particle suffixed to a verb to give it causative meaning. In modern English the effect of the now-disappeared particle is to change the vowel sound—meaningfully.
Other base verbs and the causative derived from them. In each case you can see the change made to the word by the particle that used to be added there.
cling — clench
drink — drench
fall — fell
reck — reach
rise — raise
sere — sear
sit — set
stay — stow
stink — stench
wring — wrench
I like the,
fit/fought connection.
You know there’s like 10 threads on lie/lay. I may have started one. Can’t quite remember. Sure I’ve discussed it here at some time.
I hate to tell someone “I laid down awhile” if I napped, so I say instead “I had a lie down”.
English language is so weird, no lie. 
By George, I think he’s got it! (Or is it gotten it? Aaaaarrrggghhh!)
English is full of verbs that carry more than one spelling or that once had distinct meanings that have vanished. Shall and will used to be such bugaboos to pedants but that distinction has been nearly totally lost in modern American discourse. (Same with who and whom, though not verbs.) Hang and hung was mentioned above. Burned can be both transitive and intransitive but burnt is an adjective. Yet meaned is not a standard past tense but meant is.
Whole books have been built on these historic oddities, some of them objective studies, some advising or prescribing some forms over others. Two trends throughout English history have been dominant: 1) simplification and pruning of nuances than seem unnecessary and 2) adding meanings onto familiar words so that they can be repurposed, like text.
These trends appear to be contradictory and sometimes are. Yet if they are quickly adopted widespread through a range of groups they must have been useful, even necessary.
I wouldn’t expect to.
It’s similar, except that it’s not really all that similar. Computer languages are tools that are designed with a strict intent and purpose; they have more in common with a box of tools or Lego than they do with human language.
Human language is a system that created itself - it has more in common with DNA than it does with computer code.
The resemblance between human language and computer code is superficial.
Because no one ever wrote an anthem called “Lie Down”
I kinda like “I could care less.” It makes me imagine that, yes, you probably could, but that would involve more effort than you’re interested in exerting.
And when it happens, do you have to go lie down?
If you ever have one correct you and refuse to assume a supine position until you use “lie down,” keep that pet; you’ve got a gold mine on your hands!
Yes, I have had to have lum down (see “lay, lie, lum” and “drig, drag, drug”).
The closest I can think of:
Applying standards from machine language to human language is like applying emoji standards to your face.
Sure, the emoji is much more perfect: solid color, simple lines, perfect arcs, compared to the pores and hairs and freckles and wrinkles on your own face. Human faces are weird and complex and very difficult to describe with geometric terms. But it’s insane to treat the emoji as if it’s better, or to chastise a human face for being wrong.
Do not want to sidetrack the original discussion too far, but I wonder how many people would say that something “heats up” versus “hots up”?
Except when it’s the past tense of “lie”.
As long as she’s not eating Lies potato chips in my big brass bed.
mmm
“Lay down, lay down, lay it all down.” “Lay it all down” is technically correct. The “lay down” portion is either a poetic twist on the phrase or just a shortening of it.
From the rest of the description in the song of the scene, there wouldn’t have been room to lie down.
[/end nitpick]
Ditto “sink”, “sank” and “sunk”. Or “drink”, “drank” and “drunk”. Or “sing”, “sang” and “sung”.
There’s just somethin about the i-a-u progression that people seem to dislike. On the other hand, though, I used to work with a guy who said “bring”, “brang” and “brung”.
I was going to mention that “sank” seems to be vanishing. It’s becoming more common, at least in my experience, to hear things like “The ship sunk off the coast of California.”
Interesting analogy and I agree. It’s tempting to think of them as similar things but they really only overlap a little.
In the case of computer vs human languages, the more you really look, the less similar they are - computer languages have no grammatical tense, for example.
Really, high level computer languages are just a collection of convenient, human-friendly labels for what are ultimately mathematical operations.
It’s perfectly OK to prefer maths and logic over language and writing, but it’s folly to expect them to behave the same.
There’s a lot of potential philosophy in what the “ultimate” means. In electronic computers, it’s energy states of transistors. And then we humans pile layers of interpretations on top of those states. A mathematical interpretation is often useful, but it’s by no means always useful.
But more to the topic of this thread, computer languages are dual use. The obvious one is how they cause the computer to change states. The other use is communication to other humans. Computer coding is often a group activity and coders communicate to each other via computer language what the instructions are. And just like a musical score or an engineering drawing is a formalized way for humans to communicate to each other, so is computer code.