I was taught that 'bring' meant to move something toward the speaker or their location, and 'take' meant to move something away from the speaker or their location.
In many stories, the author switches meanings.
Some sources say the above is correct, some say both are correct, and others say it doesn't matter especially when the direction of motion isn't clear.
Which do you think is correct and why?
I was taught that 'bring' meant to move something toward the speaker or their location, and 'take' meant to move something away from the speaker or their location.
No, bring certainly implies movement, but take does not.
If I am reading a book and you walk up to me and grab the book out of my hands and then just stand there, you have taken the book, but you have not moved it away from me or my location in any meaningful sense.
grab the book out of my hands and then just stand there, you have taken the book, but you have not moved it away from me
But you moved the book from my hands.
You take from and bring to.
You take from and bring to.
Except when I take something for myself. But, other than that, yes, I agree with you.
I have a similar quarrel with authors writing about a character "Shaking their heads" to confirm something. That's where they should "nod" their heads.
Except when I take something for myself.
But surely, YOU take that something FROM where it previously was.
And I know, I shouldn't call you Shirley.
But surely, YOU take that something FROM where it previously was.
I suppose that's true even for 'take a leak' or 'take a dump' (don't you actualy leave one?).
I suppose that's true even for 'take a leak' or 'take a dump' (don't you actualy leave one?).
Both a leak and a dump are deposits, not extractions. :)
Both a leak and a dump are deposits, not extractions.
And in both cases, 'bring' isn't a synonym with 'take' - you can't bring a leak or bring a dump.
AJ
you can't bring a leak or bring a dump.
At least once a day, I give a shit (to my toilet). :)
And in both cases, 'bring' isn't a synonym with 'take' - you can't bring a leak or bring a dump.
Trying to make ANY sense of English grammar or vocabulary is a near impossibility! To paraphrase:
"English doesn't borrow words from other languages so much as follows them into alleys, beats them up, then rifles through their remains for loose vocabulary and grammar!"
The Purity of the English Language (sorry, AJ)
And, back on topic(ish)
Take ... liberties, the Fifth, a break
(sorry, AJ)
I'm not immune to inventing, appropriating or mangling space-delimited sets of letters to satisfy my need for a word not knowingly part of the English language ;-)
AJ
Dominions Son 🚫
3/21/2024, 10:14:03 AM
@Michael Loucks
I suppose that's true even for 'take a leak' or 'take a dump' (don't you actualy leave one?).
Both a leak and a dump are deposits, not extractions. :)
Technically, are they not extractions from your body?
Technically, are they not extractions from your body?
Since that are being expelled from the inside, not taken by an outside agency, they are excretions, not extractions.
I suppose that's true even for 'take a leak' or 'take a dump' (don't you actualy leave one?).
I had to google that to find out why take is used that way. This is what I found:
Why take? Basically, "take" in this usage emphasizes the "following noun." When verbs do this, they are called delexical or empty because the verb is less important than the following noun. To take a piss => to piss. To take a leak => to leak. It's not that anything is being literally taken, as with other meanings of "to take," but rather that the verb introduces an action. Here is how the OED explains take as a delexical verb that emphasizes carrying out the following action:
81.a. To make, do, perform (an act, action, movement, etc.); to carry out. Often take forms with the object a phrase which is a periphrastic equivalent of the cognate verb: e.g. "to take a leap" is equivalent to "to leap," "to take a look" to "to look," "to take one's departure" to "to depart," etc.
So 'to take a leak' is 'to leak' and 'to take a dump' is 'to dump' :-)
BTW, my Friday paper had a review of Lee and Andrew Child's Jack Reacher novel, 'The Secret' (416pp). Based on the UK price, I reckon it's the paperback version so hardback probably preceded it. The premise sounds interesting and the review is good so I might keep a look for it in my local library.
AJ
So 'to take a leak' is 'to leak' and 'to take a dump' is 'to dump'
Well, "leak" is another word for "piss" and "dump" is another word for "shit" so yes, "to take a piss" is "to piss" and "to take a shit" is "to shit."
@Dominions Son
grab the book out of my hands and then just stand there, you have taken the book, but you have not moved it away from me
But you moved the book from my hands.
You left out something significant in my comment.
"in any meaningful sense."
You've moved the book a few inches, not significant enough to matter. You haven't moved the book out of my reach.
If you give me something that was already within my reach I would say you handed it to me, not that you brought it to me.
You can take something from me without moving it enough that I can't take it back without changing my position/location.
You can take something from me without moving it enough that I can't take it back without changing my position/location.
That's just one meaning of take. Another is to move an object from one place to another, which implies a meaningful amount of movement.
AJ
Another is to move an object from one place to another, which implies a meaningful amount of movement.
My point is only that take absent other context does not necessarily imply a meaningful amount of movement. Your comment actually supports my point.
My point is only that take absent other context does not necessarily imply a meaningful amount of movement.
It also doesn't deny a meaningful amount of movement.
ETA I did a search for synonyms of 'bring'. For half the meanings, 'take' is listed as a strong synonym.
AJ
It also doesn't deny a meaningful amount of movement.
I never claimed it did. My point was that "take" absent other context says nothing about movement one way or the other.
I have a similar quarrel with authors writing about a character "Shaking their heads" to confirm something. That's where they should "nod" their heads.
This is a cultural thing, believe it or not (I didn't until I hit it !). In parts of India, for example, nodding is to disagree and shaking is to agree.
I always thought that this happening in "Carry On Up The Kyber" (look it up is you've never heard of it) was a deliberate "funny" to emphasise the name of the relevant Afgan tribe - but no, it's real & it seems the tribe was named because of this. The first time I worked with Indian colleages confused me when they did this behaviour !
Wow, I just learned something new. Thanks! Like Sarkasmus, I assumed this was just a writing error. I'll have to mentally give stories a pass when I see this.
In many stories, the author switches meanings.
Do any of those switches introduce ambiguity?
AJ
Then there's the: "You can't take it with you." Should that be "bring it with you?"
And of course: "Now that I slept with your mother, I take it our date tonight is off?" (I think it's a question when used like that.)
Also: "I'll get you started and then you take it from there."
