3 ms·

Only for your edification, as your English is 1/0 (infinitely) better than my Polish. I believe you meant "lending / lent" in place of "borrowing / borrowed." W

Only for your edification, as your English is 1/0 (infinitely) better than my Polish. I believe you meant "lending / lent" in place of "borrowing / borrowed." We separate the words, so "to borrow" is to temporarily take the item, "to lend" is to temporarily give the item.

gamegoblin 4y ago
In Spanish they are the same word also -- "alquilar" -- "to rent" and "to rent out". Do any linguistics geeks reading have a word I can google for this phenomenon? That is, a word that means something like "a word or phrase that is bidirectional in one language but part of a unidirectional pair in another"
- itsthejb 4y ago
  Ditto in German. One of those rare times English is more specific!
- techdmn 4y ago
  Also in Minnesota! (I'm joshing you Minnesotans, it's a lovely state full of wonderful people. I'll borrow you whatever you need any time. ;-p )
  - gamegoblin 4y ago
    I wonder if this is due to the language that whatever large immigrant populations in Minnesota spoke. I know Minnesota had a lot of Northern European immigrants, and another commenter in this thread says German doesn't distinguish borrow/lend.
- zamfi 4y ago
  I don't have an answer but English LOVES preposition-attached verbs. You can use lent and borrowed in both directions (I lent X to him; he lent X to me -- I borrowed X from him; he borrowed X from me) so the main difference is not in whether the verbs can be used bidirectionally, but in how you indicate the direction. I suspect Spanish (and maybe Polish) disambiguate in different ways, but disambiguate I'm sure they do!
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > You can use lent and borrowed in both directions (I lent X to him; he lent X to me -- I borrowed X from him; he borrowed X from me) Those are both unidirectional: lent is always “the (possibly implicit) direct object moves from the subject to the indirect object prefaced with ‘to’” while borrowed is always “the (possibly implicit) direct object moves to the subject from the indirect object prefaced with ‘from’”. Birectional would be where the subject could be the source or recipient depending on, e.g., the preposition used to relate the other party as the indirect object.
  - marcus0x62 4y ago
    English doesn’t have noun cases, so we have to use prepositions and word order to disambiguate.
  - mejutoco 4y ago
    In your examples the direction seems to be the same. Or, more specifically, in regards to the verb the direction is the same. idk if there are regional exceptions, but in general borrow and lend seem more akin to learn and teach, respectively. The have an implicit direction: (from, in the case of borrow; to in the case of lend). I teached something from you today or I will learn you calculus in extracurricular classes don't work. In Spanish it is disambiguated in a similar way as you were mentioning (to me, to you) "Alquilo" translates literally to rent, so not really the same: - Me alquilas un piso. (you rent me a flat) - Te alquilo un piso. (I rent you a flat) I think a better translation to borrow/lend is "prestar/dejar: - Me prestas/dejas un lápiz. (you lend me a pencil/I borrow a pencil from you) - Te presto/dejo un lápiz. (I lend you a pencil/You borrow a pencil from me) Language is interesting!
_a_a_a_ 4y ago
True but in some parts of the uk (north/midlands) 'lend' can mean borrow. As kids I'd be asked by someone at school 'can I lend your pencil?' (= can I borrow your pencil). Dunno if they use that any more though. Was decades ago.
- swores 4y ago
  It can go both ways as slang. I've got one friend and one relative, both in London their whole lives, who'll say "can you borrow me (something they want)". I actually don't think I've ever heard a native English (as a first language) speaker do it the way you recall - using lend when they mean borrow - I wonder if that's just coincidence, or if one way is more common up north and the other down south?
gowld 4y ago
This thread is full of native English speakers using "loan" to mean "lend", so "borrow" isn't any worse.
- neogodless 4y ago
  The word "lend" is a synonym (same meaning) for "loan" (as a verb) while "borrow" is an antonym (opposite meaning). "I will lend you money" or "I will loan you money." "I need to borrow money until I get back on my feet." It is not grammatically correct to say "I will borrow you money."
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    Sure it is if you’re borrowing for somebody/on their behalf
    - neogodless 4y ago
      No, you would say "I will borrow money for you"
      - selimthegrim 4y ago
        "If you go to the library could you borrow me a book please?" is really right out and has to be “…borrow a book for me please?”
        neogodless 4y ago
        Any time the object of a verb is replaced with a different noun that is not really the object, it's awkward at best, and wrong at worst. Throw me down the hole a bale of hay! It does seem common to say something along the lines of "grab me a book from the library" , even if it's "grammatically incorrect." It seems much less common to say "borrow me something" but perhaps it's regional!
sowbug 4y ago
I have two more. I don't think any English speaker really cares about them, but they're fun. One: you "bring" things toward the speaker, and "take" them elsewhere. So "don't forget to bring your umbrella!" is incorrect. Two: "like" compares, and "as" joins independent clauses. So "I wish I could communicate like tptacek does" should be "I wish I could communicate as tptacek does." A correct use of like might be "You, like tptacek, comment insightfully." A famous example of a controversial misuse of "like" was the 1970s slogan "Nobody can do it like McDonald's can." It should be "... as McDonald's can." When that came out, grammar aficionados lost their minds.
- neogodless 4y ago
  Who is the speaker in "don't forget to bring your umbrella!"? If it's someone at the destination, would it not be correct? :) Of course, it's often said by someone who's with you, and on their way out, so your assertion makes sense and is often correct!
  - sowbug 4y ago
    Yeah, I thought about that case, but I still think the grammar pedants would mark the answer wrong. Not that I was there when they invented the word "bring," but I imagine they decided the specific word for movement toward the speaker was useful to make the statement more precise. I feel like allowing "bring" here just because the speaker happened to be at the destination where the listener was planning to go would let the exception swallow the rule. (To be clear, that's already happened in common English; I'd even venture that "don't forget to take your umbrella" sounds a little bit stiff, even though it's more correct.)

gamegoblin 4y ago

In Spanish they are the same word also -- "alquilar" -- "to rent" and "to rent out". Do any linguistics geeks reading have a word I can google for this phenomenon? That is, a word that means something like "a word or phrase that is bidirectional in one language but part of a unidirectional pair in another"

itsthejb 4y ago
Ditto in German. One of those rare times English is more specific!
techdmn 4y ago
Also in Minnesota! (I'm joshing you Minnesotans, it's a lovely state full of wonderful people. I'll borrow you whatever you need any time. ;-p )
- gamegoblin 4y ago
  I wonder if this is due to the language that whatever large immigrant populations in Minnesota spoke. I know Minnesota had a lot of Northern European immigrants, and another commenter in this thread says German doesn't distinguish borrow/lend.
zamfi 4y ago
I don't have an answer but English LOVES preposition-attached verbs. You can use lent and borrowed in both directions (I lent X to him; he lent X to me -- I borrowed X from him; he borrowed X from me) so the main difference is not in whether the verbs can be used bidirectionally, but in how you indicate the direction. I suspect Spanish (and maybe Polish) disambiguate in different ways, but disambiguate I'm sure they do!
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > You can use lent and borrowed in both directions (I lent X to him; he lent X to me -- I borrowed X from him; he borrowed X from me) Those are both unidirectional: lent is always “the (possibly implicit) direct object moves from the subject to the indirect object prefaced with ‘to’” while borrowed is always “the (possibly implicit) direct object moves to the subject from the indirect object prefaced with ‘from’”. Birectional would be where the subject could be the source or recipient depending on, e.g., the preposition used to relate the other party as the indirect object.
- marcus0x62 4y ago
  English doesn’t have noun cases, so we have to use prepositions and word order to disambiguate.
- mejutoco 4y ago
  In your examples the direction seems to be the same. Or, more specifically, in regards to the verb the direction is the same. idk if there are regional exceptions, but in general borrow and lend seem more akin to learn and teach, respectively. The have an implicit direction: (from, in the case of borrow; to in the case of lend). I teached something from you today or I will learn you calculus in extracurricular classes don't work. In Spanish it is disambiguated in a similar way as you were mentioning (to me, to you) "Alquilo" translates literally to rent, so not really the same: - Me alquilas un piso. (you rent me a flat) - Te alquilo un piso. (I rent you a flat) I think a better translation to borrow/lend is "prestar/dejar: - Me prestas/dejas un lápiz. (you lend me a pencil/I borrow a pencil from you) - Te presto/dejo un lápiz. (I lend you a pencil/You borrow a pencil from me) Language is interesting!

_a_a_a_ 4y ago

True but in some parts of the uk (north/midlands) 'lend' can mean borrow. As kids I'd be asked by someone at school 'can I lend your pencil?' (= can I borrow your pencil). Dunno if they use that any more though. Was decades ago.

swores 4y ago
It can go both ways as slang. I've got one friend and one relative, both in London their whole lives, who'll say "can you borrow me (something they want)". I actually don't think I've ever heard a native English (as a first language) speaker do it the way you recall - using lend when they mean borrow - I wonder if that's just coincidence, or if one way is more common up north and the other down south?

gowld 4y ago

This thread is full of native English speakers using "loan" to mean "lend", so "borrow" isn't any worse.

neogodless 4y ago
The word "lend" is a synonym (same meaning) for "loan" (as a verb) while "borrow" is an antonym (opposite meaning). "I will lend you money" or "I will loan you money." "I need to borrow money until I get back on my feet." It is not grammatically correct to say "I will borrow you money."
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  Sure it is if you’re borrowing for somebody/on their behalf
  - neogodless 4y ago
    No, you would say "I will borrow money for you"
    - selimthegrim 4y ago
      "If you go to the library could you borrow me a book please?" is really right out and has to be “…borrow a book for me please?”
      - neogodless 4y ago
        Any time the object of a verb is replaced with a different noun that is not really the object, it's awkward at best, and wrong at worst. Throw me down the hole a bale of hay! It does seem common to say something along the lines of "grab me a book from the library" , even if it's "grammatically incorrect." It seems much less common to say "borrow me something" but perhaps it's regional!

sowbug 4y ago

I have two more. I don't think any English speaker really cares about them, but they're fun. One: you "bring" things toward the speaker, and "take" them elsewhere. So "don't forget to bring your umbrella!" is incorrect. Two: "like" compares, and "as" joins independent clauses. So "I wish I could communicate like tptacek does" should be "I wish I could communicate as tptacek does." A correct use of like might be "You, like tptacek, comment insightfully." A famous example of a controversial misuse of "like" was the 1970s slogan "Nobody can do it like McDonald's can." It should be "... as McDonald's can." When that came out, grammar aficionados lost their minds.

neogodless 4y ago
Who is the speaker in "don't forget to bring your umbrella!"? If it's someone at the destination, would it not be correct? :) Of course, it's often said by someone who's with you, and on their way out, so your assertion makes sense and is often correct!
- sowbug 4y ago
  Yeah, I thought about that case, but I still think the grammar pedants would mark the answer wrong. Not that I was there when they invented the word "bring," but I imagine they decided the specific word for movement toward the speaker was useful to make the statement more precise. I feel like allowing "bring" here just because the speaker happened to be at the destination where the listener was planning to go would let the exception swallow the rule. (To be clear, that's already happened in common English; I'd even venture that "don't forget to take your umbrella" sounds a little bit stiff, even though it's more correct.)