Comments on: Happy New Year!

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:36:44 +0000

Interesting. It is possible that a motive of flattery could be behind the decision to select a verb that allows the recipient to be the direct object, not the gift. It highlights just how generous the wonderful giver was to the wonderful recipient.

By: Andrew Flanagan

Andrew Flanagan — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:45:34 +0000

Also, I changed the phrase from “non-pretentious human speech” to “non-pretentious English speech”. I meant any human speaking English. I didn’t mean to make judgments on those of us who speak other languages with an accepted “give/gift” distinction.

By: Andrew Flanagan

Andrew Flanagan — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:42:23 +0000

Alexander — thanks for the info. I’ve taken a little German (and had learned both verbs) but hadn’t thought of them in the context of this post. That’s neat…

I don’t have a problem with two verbs — one for each meaning, but the issue is the odd connotations that become part of the traditional English verb “give” when a new verb is introduced. Essentially, if we could start over, it seems like it would might be helpful to introduce “gift” as a verb. But we’re always stuck with the legacy and tradition of our language.

I found this online also:

Gift has a long history of use as a verb meaning “to furnish with a gift; endow” as in “The world must love and fear him Whom I gift with heart and hand” (Elizabeth Barrett Browning). This sense provides a useful distinction from give, for give can sometimes be confusing because it means both “to transfer physical possession” and “to transfer ownership.” Unfortunately, the use of gift as a verb in Modern English is tainted by its association with the language of advertising and publicity (as in Gift her with this copper warming plate). A large majority of the Usage Panel rejected the usage in an earlier survey. When you want clarity, use a substitutes such as give as a gift, bestow, or donate.
(From http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0142.html)

I guess I’m picking up on this “tainted” feeling. I don’t know any of the older usage of this word as a verb but perhaps it once had a more “normal” meaning.

Interestingly, doing a search on “gift as a verb” turns up a number of blogs of people who hate its use. I’m not the only one I guess.

By: Alexander

Alexander — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:14:25 +0000

First: sorry for my English, I’ve read about your high claims, I won’t be able to fulfill them…
In German there are two different words for giving (”geben”) and for to give as a present (”schenken”).
This is normal traditional language and I am sure no one would think about dropping one of these words!
It is very easy: just giving, handing over is “geben”.
If you don’t need to give it back, if you can keep it as your property it is “schenken”.
This is very clear, without any complications, and is helping to avoid confusion (”how is this giving meant, can I keep it? Is it impolite if I ask about that?”)

You are always free to modestly “give” it, if you mean “schenken” (to give it as a present). But you can say it also very clear and easy, and it’s more like an honour than awkward for the giver (gifter )

By: godith

godith — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:45:52 +0000

I, very generously, am giving you something–for keeps–and as I have generously gifted you, so you may also regift very generously as well.

It is more blessed to gift than to receive. And using the word gift makes one feel even more blessed (and proud). Isn’t it neat how God always works everything to our good–even gifting makes us feel and think more about ourselves than about the receiver! Praise the Lord and gift the loot. “Now back to me”!!
(Seriously, I like the post a lot. Quite enlightening).