How about the way ‘bring’ and ‘take’ get mixed up? I can’t believe the number of people who don’t seem to know the difference; it seems perfectly obvious to me. I especially hate it when signs are there with the deli’s potato salad, for example, that say, “Bring this to your picnic,” when of course we’re not having a picnic here at the deli so the word should be ‘take’ instead of ‘bring’. People also don’t seem to know the difference between other opposites–‘come’ and ‘go’, for example.
And then there’s ‘waiting on’ when the speaker really means ‘waiting for’, as when they’re waiting for results from blood tests from the scene of the crime. ‘Waiting on’ seems to me to be about activities of waiters or waitresses, or clerks helping us in a store.
Terms that are inherently deictic (that is, terms that realize meaning from context) often take on functions that are not strictly representational with regard to place, time etc. They have affective (or psychological) dimensions, as well, which can “override” the physical or the temporal. For example, when an employee makes a request of the boss, he says, “I was wondering if I could have tomorrow off.” Obviously he is still wondering now, but he switches to past tense out of deference to the person who is his superior in the work place—to show respect. That’s an affective (social) use of verb tense, not a temporal use of tense.
Or you might see your favorite stand-up comedian on TV, and call to a family member, “Hey, you gotta see this guy—he’s great!” Normally this refers to something close and that refers to something far, but this is often used with something that is actually far (or at least not near) to express affinity or affection. Likewise, if you see on TV a commentator, for example, whom you hate, you might say, “I can’t stand that guy.” There’s no difference in the actual distance between yourself and either the comic or the commentator, but still you select the terms differently to communicate something besides physical space.
Take and bring can also function in this way. If your grandmother is in the hospital, you might say to your sister, "Hey, let’s bring her some flowers.” Why? Because you sympathize with her situation—you feel for her, so you psychologically put yourself in her place, hence it’s almost as though the flowers are being “brought” to you, too–as though you were sitting next to your grandmother, ailing with her. The choice of bring over take communicates something which is not about physical space—it’s about affect (feeling).
To say that such usage of these terms is “incorrect” is to ignore and deny a component of language that has not only probably been going on since language began, but which is also perfectly legitimate. There is nothing “wrong” with it. It’s just a different function of language, which is a lot more subtle–too subtle for most grammarians–but something linguists are fully aware of.
When people say that bring always means toward the speaker and that take always means away from the speaker, they usually say this because it’s a pat and easy way to explain something that is really more complex. (More often than not, they’re English teacher types who often get asked by their students to say what is “correct,” and so they fall back on whatever is easiest. And usually when they’re not paying attention to their own speech they make these same “errors” themselves.)
It’s grossly oversimplified to explain it in this way, and just does not reflect the complete range of functions which these two terms actually serve.
Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child, which is often used as a defense for corporal punishment. I know it’s a Biblical phrase, so it has to make sense on some level, but to my ears it sounds like "Refrain from using the rod, and treat the child exceptionally well.
Maybe those terms had different meanings back when the King James translation was penned.
“Spoil” still has two meanings: to ruin, and to pamper and indulge excessively (which is another way of ruining). But when we hear “spoil” and “child” in the same phrase it generally means the latter, although the former makes sense (and is indeed what the aphorism means.)
[If you] spare the rod, [then you’ll] spoil the child.
In other words, if you don’t beat your kids (with a rod, yet!) they’ll grow up to be spoiled brats. I don’t like or agree with the sentiment, but the phrase makes perfect sense.
[If you] spare the rod, [then you’ll] spoil the child.
In other words, if you don’t beat your kids (with a rod, yet!) they’ll grow up to be spoiled brats. I don’t like or agree with the sentiment, but the phrase makes perfect sense.
[/QUOTE]
Now that you put it that way, it makes sense. I guess I was always saw it as a direct command.
The KJV actually says “he that spares the rod hates his son”. I.e if you love your children you will discipline them (albeit that the method isn’t so popular today)
No matter what lengths you go to in order to try to rationalize it, ‘come’ in general means ‘come here’ and ‘go’ means ‘go there’. Same logic seems to apply (IMHO) to ‘bring’ and ‘take’-- ‘bring it here’, ‘take it there’.