Hello - this really is to fight ignorance rather than criticise in any way. I’m a Brit but more pertinent to my question both, a teacher of English as a foreign language (which pretty much ensures a plethora of grammar & spelling errors in this post) and a trainer of others wanting to become EFL teachers - so I do need to have a fair idea what’s going on with the language.
This accompanied a photo on the BBC website this morning “Mr Kennedy, a fan of the water dog, is said to have gifted one to the Obamas”.
This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this verb but what does “to gift” mean ? More specifically why would you choose to say “gift” in this case rather than “give” -which, given the article tells me that the dog is “from close family friend, Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts”, would seem more natural to me.
What is there a nuance I’m missing ? I see “present” would be too official as this is “between friends” rather than “between senator and president”, “donate” would suggest an act of charity, but “gift” ?
(I do believe there is a factual answer to this rather than just it’s American. I heard the adjective “addicting” in California and was ready to dismiss it until it was explained that “addicting” is free of the negative connotations of “addictive” thus to a certain group English speakers while alcohol and cigarettes are addictive watching Desperate Housewives or chocolate are addicting. Now I’m not saying I’d ever teach this but it’s good to know should someone ever ask me about it.)
I can see two reasons to use ‘gifted’ over ‘given’. First, in some situations, it’s nice to specify that something is a gift. To give is general enough that it could refer to something handed over but paid for: “The cashier gave me my bag of groceries” would be different from “the cashier gifted me my bag of groceries”. Obviously, that’s an awkward turn of phrase, but there is a difference between the two words. Second, in this case, where ‘given’ wouldn’t really cause confusion, using a specific word instead of a general one gives it that newspaper-y feeling, really. It’s just a stylistic choice, really, but that’s not a bad thing.
As a user of English as a foreign language I consider ‘to gift’ useful as it avoids ambiguity between to give in the meanings of ‘to give as a gift’ and ‘to hand over’.
OK - so “he gifted them a dog” = he gave them a dog as a present or he gave them a present of a dog. That’s clear, thank you.
Would you still use “gift” if the context of “it” being a present was implicit ? eg Last year he gifted me a book for my birthday. This sounds clumsy to me but I can see the appeal to non-native speakers who feel “give” is too direct.
To my American ears, it sounds like reporter-speak to say something was “gifted.” I’d never use the term myself. It sounds like some sort of made-up phrase.
The nuance difference is pointed out above; I can give you Herpes but generally would not gift you Herpes. Use of “gift” in the latter instance would be for the purpose of deliberately conveying irony.
Nevertheless use of “gift” instead of “give” as a transitive verb strikes me as stilted. In the context you cite, it does not add clarity, and it’s probably just a preference. I did not realize its use is peculiar to Americans; I’ve always seen the British as a little more hoity toity with their preferences.
I understand the “give/gift” distinction being drawn, but the only time I could see a possible use for it would be in a photo caption or suchlike where word count was an issue. Otherwise, I’d say “made a gift of the dog” or “gave the dog as a gift.” “Gift” as a verb strikes me as a damned uneuphonious neologism.
The verb “to gift” is used, not just in America, in a context where the legal or tax implications of the transfer are considered relevant. This would not apply in the case of the Obamas’ dog, however.
Is this actually an Americanism? I’m not sure if I’ve ever heard anyone say it. I’ve mostly seen it on the SDMB. It could be that it’s only common among people younger than me, or it could be that it’s restricted to some particular social set.
As ws noted, it carries the connotations of “to give as a completely free gift without strings attached, not as a consideration” and "to give after careful choice. It’s a very uncommon word in colloquial speech, used in writing or in repertorial narrative where it’s important to draw the nuance the connotation suggests.
I might give you a quarter dollar to feed the parking meter when you find yourself without change. But I would gift you with the mirror-finish proof quarter dollar struck on your birth year, in a presentation case, that I ordered especially from samclem to be the perfect gift for you.
Where’d you hear that? Sounds like a lame excuse someone made up after the fact.
Not that it’d make Californianisms any less addicting. You Brits keep your prim and proper English; we’ll just keep evolving ours
ETA: IMO “addicting” is free of negative connotations only because it reached critical mass, not because of a subtle-but-important difference in meaning. Language of the people, nya!
Perhaps the OP is referring to the way some English speakers brazenly use nouns as verbs. “Gifted”, “architected”, “mothballed”, “leveraged”… there are countless examples.
And perhaps American English speakers are more comfortable with this practice of converting nouns to verbs than British English speakers? It certainly seems like a lot of them originate in American business speak.
