I saw this in a bar, and I'm pretty sure it's grammatically incorrect

"You're not drunk if you can't lay on the floor without holding on."

That's too many negatives, correct?  Or am I not drunk enough to understand?

Comments

  • Too many negatives, and lay is incorrect. "You are not drunk if you CAN lie on the floor without holding on".
  • edited November 2015
    Obviously thinking too much about this. If you drop one negative "You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on" you lose the intended vision of drunk person lying on the floor desperately clutching at the floorboards. Other than the lay/lie problem the sentence as first presented is correct.
  • But you are drunk if you can't lie on the floor without holding on.
  • Obviously thinking too much about this. If you drop one negative "You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on" you lose the intended vision of drunk person lying on the floor desperately clutching at the floorboards. Other than the lay/lie problem the sentence as first presented is correct.
    But isn't that the point?  If you are on the floor, and you are not holding on, you are not drunk.  So buy another round!  

    I'll tell you this much - I needed a drink after I tried to explain it to Mr. Mukluks.  
  • Can I just up vote ALL of this, and buy a round?
  • If you take out the other negative, what they're trying to say becomes clear - "You're drunk if you can't lie on the floor without holding on."

    They're trying to say that you're NOT drunk if you CAN lie on the floor without holding on, which is the same as the sentence above. It makes NO sense as originally written.
  • I love this conversation. Second round is on me.
  • edited November 2015
    I saw a letter to a newspaper advice columnist this morning in which a woman was grousing because her adult daughters weren't dating.  She said they "missed not having men in their lives".  I thought, if that's true, they should stop dating!
Sign In or Register to comment.