[Thad E Ginathom]

Yes, it would have been a gift. You would have given it to him. Not gifted.

But carry on gifting... the battle is lost.

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by vnabhi

Now you have me confused! Suppose I gave my book to my friend for reading, would that be a gift? I do want him to return it.

On the contrary, if i'd gifted it to him, I would not have had such an expectation.

When you give a book to a friend to read it is presumed that he/she will return it (to you) after reading it. Now, if you'd given the book as a gift there would be no such return.
If you hadn't specified that the book was a gift it would be presumed that it is to be returned to you.

Gifted has an entirely different meaning, more akin to 'talented'; and there is no 'past tense' for the word gift. So there!

[vnabhi]

Originally Posted by anupmathur

When you give a book to a friend to read it is presumed that he/she will return it (to you) after reading it. Now, if you'd given the book as a gift there would be no such return.
If you hadn't specified that the book was a gift it would be presumed that it is to be returned to you.

Gifted has an entirely different meaning, more akin to 'talented'; and there is no 'past tense' for the word gift. So there!

Thanks. But what's the correct expression when my intention was to give it to him for reading vs returning after reading?
'Gave it to him ' doesn't distinguish between the two.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by vnabhi

'Gave it to him ' doesn't distinguish between the two.

You are right, it doesn't. If I give the broom to the maid, I do not intend her to take it home; If I give you a cake, I do not intend you to return it.

Context is all.

[vnabhi]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

You are right, it doesn't. If I give the broom to the maid, I do not intend her to take it home; If I give you a cake, I do not intend you to return it.

Context is all.

Thanks. Perhaps it might help to say something like 'gave it to him as a gift' versus 'gave it to him for using and returning '.

[Thad E Ginathom]

You've almost convinced me that the language does need an extra word!

I wonder what my dad might have said to this one, back in 1950-something. I have a feeling it might have been something like, "You didn't give the broom to the maid, you passed it to her." Yes! He was such a stickler. Good driving instructor too!

Thinking back to the book example, we would use the word lend rather than give. It is a loan and not a gift. So maybe there are sufficient words after all.

[noopster]

Converting a noun to a verb (ironically called "verbing") is a relatively new phenomenon. In the old days you"received an email", now someone emails you. You conference your team instead of "setting up a conference call", Whatsapp your buddies instead of "sending them a message using Whatsapp".

Bill Waterson wrote about verbing rather caustically once but I can't remember where. "Gifting" seems to be an early version of this phenomenon. To be honest I had no idea it wasn't correct usage.

[Thad E Ginathom]

It's quite recent, I think. Maybe the Americans have been using it longer.

[dark.knight]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

It's quite recent, I think. Maybe the Americans have been using it longer.

I think America is the key reason for the change, and in many ways the degradation of English as a language. The trend today is to copy how the Americans write or speak and its evident even in the largest of national newspapers like TOI.

I was kind of disturbed/amused to read the 'f' word, published in full in this weeks edition in an article related to American elections. Yes, it was not censored with the usual asterisks either. With such words they make no typographical errors on, but today I saw two or three simple, regularly used words that were printed wrongly. Even popular news channels like NDTV, TN, CNN IBN publish massive typos in the text scroll/headlines.

I am very much aware that English has been and always will be influenced by other languages or changing times but today thanks to phone texting, e-mails and well, laziness.. it is anything but a language. Zomato is sort of a food reviewing/ordering website, next people will say "I'm zomatoeing" to refer to the act of eating, shopping can become myntraing etc. Its going to get far worse. Its not that I approve of Shakespearean English either, I believe it was at its best when I was first learning it in school a little over 2 decades ago. I was taught by 2-3 Anglo-Indian teachers who believed very strongly in a neutral pronunciation (very Indian) and an old fashioned composition of sentences and I continue to do the same the best way I can. English has since become burdened by euphemisms, adult-erated words, abbreviations, indirectly direct/directly indirect manner of phrasings and many other assorted changes that have ruined it for good.

I think "presented" would be a good substitute for the word "gifted". Gift has become the modern meaning of "present", i.e if present itself has an etymology far removed from its modern meaning which I didn't know of.

[Thad E Ginathom]

The Hindu is publishing an edition specially for schools, and they gave away the first couple with the regular newspaper. There was an article about English language, supposedly written by and English teacher (wriiten by a supposed teacher of English ). It was full of mistakes and misunderstandings. Even now, a youngster using that article as guidance would be laughed at in UK.

That seems to me to be irresponsible and tragic. None of these things are really difficult to get right. I don't believe it even requires deep study of complex grammar (which is what most of the world does when learning a foreign language) it just takes immersion in good example.

Chaucer, today, looks like a foreign language and actually requires a translation for us to understand it at all. That is six or seven hundred years of language change. Half that, and the language of Shakespeare is not really very useful to us. The language of Dickens contains stuff that we don't consider correct today --- but the literature of the past couple of hundred years, the good writing, is a wonderful way to learn good ways with the language, and a very nice way to spend time too.

I bet that The Hindu has not employed a real reader of English for a generation.

(as I said a few posts ago, good American literature counts just as much. It is not that different)

I think "presented" would be a good substitute for the word "gifted". Gift has become the modern meaning of "present", i.e if present itself has an etymology far removed from its modern meaning which I didn't know of.

it is one of those affectation words. It sounds more formal. Now it has become ordinary through common usage.

And now for another rant...

How is it that people commonly use the word should when they mean could?

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by dark.knight

....
I think "presented" would be a good substitute for the word "gifted".....

That still doesn't sound right. Presented would mean you 'made available to him' but would still not convey the unequivocal sense of 'having given him a present' (for posterity).
I think the only way to express the act of having given a 'present' or 'gift' is to say it in as many words.

[vnabhi]

Hmm, that could been the source of legal jargon like 'known by all these presents..'.

[noopster]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

It's quite recent, I think. Maybe the Americans have been using it longer.

Grammarist.com claims the usage of "gift" as a verb dates back to the 17th century. Please visit that link and see the nuanced usage of "to gift" and why it can't be replaced by "to give" in all circumstances.

"Gift" certainly cannot be replaced by "present" in this context. Merriam-Webster defines (to) present as:

• to give something to someone in a formal way or in a ceremony
• to formally talk about (something you have written, studied, etc.) to a group of people
• to make (something) available to be used or considered

Also, the words have differing (though related) etymologies. Please check present(v) and present (n2) in this link.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by noopster

Grammarist.com claims the usage of "gift" as a verb dates back to the 17th century. Please visit that link and see the nuanced usage of "to gift" and why it can't be replaced by "to give" in all circumstances.

very unimpressive article that says, essentially, don't worry about bothering the few who like to see words used properly! As to the 17th century, maybe people were making mistakes then too! Even if they were not, we do not speak Shakespeare's English today.

The author waffles about what some unknown person may think when hearing the words: it really is just waffle.

"Gift" certainly cannot be replaced by "present" in this context. Merriam-Webster defines (to) present as:
Also, the words have differing (though related) etymologies. Please check present(v) and present (n2) in this link.

I think the nouns can be interchangeable. A present can be what you get on your birthday; so can a gift. The verbs, not so much. Presenting is what happens at presentations.

I just checked Fowler. I see I have the Scots to blame! I didn't know that

gift (verb). Despite its antiquity (first
recorded in the 16c.) and its frequent
use, esp. by Scottish writers, since then, it
has fallen out of favour among standard
speakers in England, and is best avoided.
On the other hand, gifted ppl adj. 'tal-
ented' (a gifted violinist) is standard.

[noopster]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

very unimpressive article that says, essentially, don't worry about bothering the few who like to see words used properly! As to the 17th century, maybe people were making mistakes then too! Even if they were not, we do not speak Shakespeare's English today.

The author waffles about what some unknown person may think when hearing the words: it really is just waffle.

I suppose you mean this part:

In any case, many people who pay attention to these things have an odd aversion to the use of words outside their conventional part-of-speech roles—adjectives used as nouns, nouns used as verbs, and so on. But this sort of thing has gone on throughout the history of English—and no doubt it has always peeved some small percentage of the people living through any given change—and it’s one of the qualities that gives English its color and versatility. Resistance to new uses of words is understandable, but any insistence that new uses of words are simply wrong is based on an unrealistic view of how English is supposed to work. Of course, personal taste is another matter, and no one is ever forced to adopt a word he or she doesn’t like.

I'm not a fan of "verbing" myself so I get what you're saying, but the author has a point. I would stop short of dismissing everything he has written as "waffle"

Sometimes you have to use a word that exactly conveys the sentiment and not something that's almost-there. The "use case" for gift as a verb (forgive me, I've been in IT far too long!) makes itself. I respect your right to fight it, though. And by using "waffle" in that sense, you have proved yourself 100% dyed-in-the-wool British!