Rant Number 325

Every once and a while the same button-pushing meme goes around, and I feel the need to get up on my soapbox. Since they repeat periodically, I think I'll just start keeping a list of soapboxes, and so instead of retyping, I can just say "rant number 287"). So, here is Rant Number 325:

I am an English snob. The plural of 'medium' is 'media' and vice versa. 'PIN number' is redundant. I can correctly identify homophones, and spot a misplaced apostrophe at 100 paces. So when people get up on the internet and start ranting about improper English, I'm usually right there with them.

Every year, around Christmas, there is an outpouring of outrage over the use of "gift" as a verb. Why go around making up words (gift), goes the rant, when there is a perfectly good word (give) already available?

The anti-gift arguments generally rely on one or both of the following reasons:

1. "Gift" as a verb is a modern invention by people who either don't know or care any better. Its use is either ignorant or (even worse) intentionally wrong in order to sound cute or clever.

2. As an exact synonym of "give," "gift" is unnecessary and irrelevant.

Unfortunately for the people ranting, the word has been in recorded use since at least the 1600's. (The un-challanged adjective "gifted" was derived from the verb "to gift," rather than the other way around.) So using it in modern-day language may be an anachronism, but it's not a new invention.

To which, some people bluster, "Well, sure, just because it used to be a word doesn't make it correct now." Which I will grant them. However, if the word were actually obsolete, then I wouldn't keep finding people complaining about its use. Words in common usage, even if just common usage by people one doesn't like, are not obsolete.

And the direct equivilent of "to gift" is "to give as a gift." The specification is necessary because not all things given are gifts. Teachers give out grades, but they do not give them as gifts. Similarly, I may give someone something to take home, but expect it back the next day. Both "give" and "gift" denote a transfer of ownership, but "gift" is more specific. It implies both a permanent transfer, and an extra importance to both the item and the act. If I give someone their stapler back, it's unremarkable. If I gift them their stapler, it's funny. So replacing all instances of "to gift" with "to give," either removes a layer of meaning, or adds three extra words.

More importantly, I disagree with the idea that because two words are synonyms that only one ought to exist. No two words ever mean exactly the same thing. The literal definitions may be equal, but not the connotations. We should be embracing a larger, more expressive language, rather than trying to condense it into it's smallest possible form.

So there.