Michael has touched a raw nerve ending for the dwindling number
of us who (and not "that") were educated in grammar in a more rigorous -
dare I say pre-electronic, pre-PC - time. Along with the
apostrophe, this verb is the victim of continuing atrocities.
I'll bet that many are not even aware of the rich array of double
entendre involved; as in "I hope to get laid this weekend."
My hypothesis is that much of the causation has been the shift
of usage from written/printed, to oral (and _not_ "verbal"!),
resulting in the confounding of similar sounds. English, and likely other
languages, is "played by ear" any more.
Thus, we find such Spoonerisms as "dribble" for "drivel," "hone
in" for "home in," et cetera ad nauseum.

According to Michael A. Bermudez:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>         A question of correct grammar arose at work today when attempting
> to properly stencil instructions onto the lids of crates. The crates are to
> be sent to anohter insitution with very specific un/packing instructions.
> The debate centered around the question of which was correct: "LAY FLAT TO
> UNPACK" or "LIE FLAT TO UNPACK". After consulting the _Chicago Manual of
> Style_ ,  _Webster's Third_, the museum's editor and a professor in an
> English Department, "LAY" was decided upon because it is theoretically
> considered to be and *active* word, versus the *static* "LIE", ie one is to
> perform the act of correctly positioning the crates before removing
> objects. This seems especially appropriate because the same crates that
> need to be layed flat before emptying will travel in an upright position.
> In other words, stenciled arrows require that the crates be shipped in a
> manner other than that in which they should be emptied. May I have opinions
> on the issue? I'm curious to know what the popular consensus is (although
> I'm sure that AAM has prescribed guidlines for such dilemmas).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael
> ([log in to unmask])
>