Verbs don’t always play fair. They’re a huge, complicated pack of words, most of which conform to a set of rules and principles governing the different forms they take. But these rules aren’t always obvious, and—wouldn’t you know it—there are also lots of outliers, irregular verbs of one sort or another that require special handling and are slippery enough to cause problems for even the most careful speakers. In this chapter, we’ll study three topics at the root of most of the common errors made with verbs: transitive vs. intransitive verbs, tenses of certain notorious irregular verbs, and the subjunctive mood.

Here’s the low-down: Transitive verbs are verbs that take a direct object in order to complete their meanings. Intransitive verbs do not take a direct object. If these terms, “transitive” and “intransitive,” seem a little opaque at first, think of it this way: The transit in “transitive” refers to the idea of being conveyed across something, as in a city’s transit system. Similarly, transitive verbs are those in which the action of the verb is being conveyed across from the subject to the direct objectthat is, from the person doing the acting to the person or thing on the receiving end of the action. (If the terms “subject” and “direct object” are confusing, take a little side trip back to the Grammar Review.) Take, for example, the sentence The cat ate the canary. Here the action of eating is being conveyed across from the subject, “cat,” to the direct object, “canary.” The cat was the one doing the eating, but his action of eating was worked upon, or received by, the unfortunate canary. Thus the sense of “transit” in this transitive use of the verb “ate.”

Many verbs can be either transitive or intransitive depending on the way in which they’re used in a sentence. But some verbs are transitive through and through. The verb “to bring” is one of these. It requires a direct object to complete its meaning, to answer the question bring what? You wouldn’t have a meaningful sentence by saying, “he brings,” but add the direct object “trouble” and you’ve got yourself a real sentence: He brings trouble.

The verb “to weep,” on the other hand, can go either way. You can say, He weeps crocodile tears, where “tears” is the direct object—the things being wept. The presence of that direct object means that “weep” is functioning here as a transitive verb. However, you can also say, He weeps at weddings, and have no direct object—there’s nothing on the receiving end of his action of weeping. In that case, the verb is functioning in an intransitive mode. See if you can pick out the transitive and intransitive verbs in these sentences:

Now that you’re getting the hang of this, let’s look at two common errors caused by the confusing use of transitive and intransitive verbs.

Here’s Why: Though “lie” and “lay” have closely related meanings, they’re two entirely different verbs. “Lay” is a transitive verb, meaning to put or place or prepare something—that “something” being the verb’s direct object. “Lie,” on the other hand, is an intransitive verb that takes no object, and it means to be in a state of reclining. Said another way, “lying” is something you do yourself, or something an object is doing for itself-inanimate objects such as books can be said to be in a state of reclining as well as people can. “Laying,” on the other hand, is more action-oriented. It’s something a person is doing to another thing. For example, you may lay (not lie) a book on a table, after which the book may be said to be lying (not laying) on the table. The following are correct uses of “lie” and “lay”:

Perhaps the trickiest aspect of “lie” and “lay,” however, is what happens when you’re describing something that happened in the past or is to happen in the future. The forms of the two verbs look more similar then, because some of the “lie” forms have an “a” in them. For example, the past tense of “lie” is “lay.” Here’s a chart to help you keep the verb forms straight.

Three rules can help guide you through the “lay/lie” maze:

Here are a few more examples of incorrect and correct uses of these two verbs:

Here’s Why: Like “lie” and “lay,” “sit” and “set” are a pair of transitive and intransitive verbs with related meanings. “Set” means to put or to place something somewhere or to put it in motion. It is always transitive, and thus always needs an object. “Sit,” on the other hand, is virtually always intransitive. It means, in the case of people, to be in a seated position, or in the case of things, to be at rest. It almost never takes an object, because the sitting usually isn’t being done to anything. The exception would be something such as He sat them down for a talk, but that’s rare. Here are some correct examples of these two verbs in action:

Verb tenses tell us the time of the action in question. There are six tenses in all, broken into two groups: the simple tenses, and their confidently named cousins, the perfect tenses. The simple tenses are, well, simple:

The previous examples show that verb tenses take many forms, but you may have noticed a pattern: all these variations are built on what are known as a verb’s three principal parts: the present-tense form, the past-tense form, and the past participle—the last of which is used to create the perfect tenses. If you know the principal parts of a verb, you won’t have trouble forming the six tenses correctly. To illustrate, here are the principal parts of a few regular verbs:

“To be” is truly the king of the verbs. It’s the most commonly employed verb in the language, used not only as a linking verb, but also as a helping verb, as we saw in some of the tense examples. But its forms are extremely irregular and usually bear little resemblance to the word “be.” The following is a breakdown of the various forms “to be” takes in each of the six tenses as it changes to correspond in person and number with a subject. (Check the Grammar Review for a brushup on the terms “person” and “number” if you need to.)

Grammar and usage experts get themselves into a lather on the finer points of this issue, and the English have an elaborate system that Americans are sometimes taught in school but stubbornly refuse to use. But we’ll spare you the English system here. Just keep in mind that in formal (American) speech or writing, “shall” is the correct form of “to be” for the first person (“I” or “we”) in the future and future perfect tenses. Clearly, though, “shall” is not a word you hear every day, and the negative contraction of “shall,” “shan‘t” (the functional equivalent of “won’t”), sounds downright odd to American ears. A sentence such as I shan’t have any grits today, thank you would draw stares at your local diner. Most Americans simply use “will” and “won‘t” in place of “shall” and “shan’t,” and it would be hard to find someone who frowns on this in ordinary conversation. However, when you wish to write or speak with the highest degree of precision and formality, use “shall” in the first person. And we shan’t trouble you any more on this matter.

Now let’s take a look at some of the most common errors people make with verb tenses.

Here’s Why: The principal parts of the verb “to do” are “do,” “did,” and “done.” I do, I did, I have done. So anytime you’re playing with one of the perfect tenses, that is, where you’re using helping verbs such as “have” or “had,” you need to use the past participle, “done.” Here are some more examples of the proper tense forms of “to do”:

Here’s Why: The principal parts of “to burst” are—get this—“burst,” “burst,” and “burst.” It bursts today, it burst yesterday, it will have burst by tomorrow. Once you remember that, it’s impossible for you to choose the wrong form. “Bust” is not the past tense of “burst,” but a slang variant of it, used in informal speech to mean both “burst” and “break.” Most speakers don’t accept “bust” as a verb in formal speech or writing, so you should avoid it. Instead of saying, I can’t come to work today because I busted my knee, say, I can’t come to work today because I broke my knee. And if you feel the urge to use “bust” as the past tense of “burst,” resist it: “burst” has a perfectly good past tense of its own, and doesn’t need any help, thank you. Here are some examples that illustrate the point:

Here’s Why: The principal parts of “to dive” are “dive,” “dived” or (less formally) “dove,” and “dived.” When using the past tense, many speakers now consider either “dove” or “dived” acceptable, although conservative speakers greatly prefer “dived”—accepted usage is slowly changing on this one. But when you’re forming the perfect tenses, as we did here, with “has,” you must use the past participle, and that’s “dived.” Here are a few more examples:

The next five errors involve verbs that share a common pattern: drink, swim, ring, sing, and spring.

Here’s Why: The principal parts of “to drink” are “drink,” “drank,” and “drunk.” I drink now, I drank yesterday, I have drunk before. The verb “drink” is part of a group of irregular verbs with similar vowel changes across the tenses—an “i” in the present changing to an “a” in the past tense and a “u” for the past participle. Here are more examples featuring “drink”:

Here’s Why: “Swim” follows the same pattern as “drink.” Its principal parts are “swim,” “swam,” and “swum.” I swim today, I swam yesterday, I shall have swum by tomorrow. Additional examples are:

Here’s Why: Maybe you’re ahead of us already—“ring” works the same way that “drink” and “swim” do. Its principal parts are “ring,” rang,“ and “rung.” I ring, I rang, I have rung. More examples are:

Here’s Why: Again, this one fits the pattern: the principal parts are “sing,” “sang,” and “sung.” I sing, I sang, I had sung. Other examples are:

Here’s Why: If you’re getting a little bored with the “-ing,” “-ang,” “-ung” pattern, at least this one has a little twist: The principal parts are “spring,” “sprang,” or “sprung,” and “sprung.” I spring, I sprang, I shall have sprung. It’s okay to use “sprung” in the past tense, as in “she sprung to life,” although “sprang” seems to be a little more common. What you can’t do is use “sprang” in place of “sprung” for the perfect tenses. It has to be “has, had, or have sprung.” Additional examples are:

Here’s Why: The verb “to hang” is odd in that the forms vary according to whether you’re using the verb in reference to an execution or in the usual sense of suspending something. Normally, “hang” follows the same pattern as “drink” and the other verbs we’ve just been looking at: its principal parts are “hang,” “hung,” and “hung.” She hangs the picture, she hung it, she had hung it. But when you’re talking about executions, the principal parts are “hang,” “hanged,” and “hanged.” He’ll hang at dawn, he was hanged at dawn yesterday, they have hanged him for stealing.

Here’s Why: The principal parts of “to drive” are “drive,” “drove,” and “driven.” I drive, I drove, I had driven. Most people know to use “drove” for the past tense, but they get confused about the perfect tenses, as in our example here, and use either “drove” or “drived” instead of “driven.” Here are some more correct examples:

Here’s Why: “Ought” has only one form, and that’s “ought.” It is a helping verb designed to work with other verbs to indicate that something should be done. No matter what tense the main verb in the sentence is in, “ought” never changes form. It never takes a helping verb such as “had” for itself. One other point worth mentioning about the verb “ought” is that it should always be followed by the infinitive form of a verb, that is, the form with the word “to” in front of it, as in We ought to come at Christmas, you ought to slow down, they ought not to take the test next week.

Finally, to complete our look at verb forms, there are two errors that call for the verb form of the infinitive.

Here’s Why: The phrase “be sure” should be followed by either the infinitive form of a verb—“to try,” in our example—or by a complete clause be sure that you try the sea urchin omelette.

Here’s Why: Same thing as in the previous example: You can’t use “and” where an infinitive form of the verb is required.

You’ll notice that in most of these examples, the form of the verb doesn’t seem to match the person and number of the subject—it says, “I were” instead of “I am,” “she take” instead of “she takes” and “Ed show” instead of “Ed shows.” There is a whole thicket full of odd-sounding constructions in the subjunctive mood, most of them used only in poetic or parliamentary contexts. However, all you really need to know in order to navigate the subjunctive waters successfully for most occasions are two rules. Here’s the less important one first:

The most significant rule, though, is for the verb “to be,” because that’s the verb most commonly used in the subjunctive mood today. And the rule is this:

How can you be sure you’re dealing with the subjunctive so you know whether “were” is correct? Here’s a litmus test: First, check for key words, such as “if,” “as though,” and “wish.”

Here’s Why: We need “were” instead of “was” here because we’re in the subjunctive mood. We know it’s the subjunctive because the signs are there: the use of “if,” and the condition contrary to fact—in this case, the fact that I cannot be you. Let’s look at a few more examples of the correct use of “was” and “were”: