Makes the perfect gift!
Earlier this week on Twitter, an improv friend of mine stated, “‘Gift’ is not a verb.” As I am a fan of neologisms in general and of verbing nouns, and as often my initial reaction to opinions is to respectfully disagree with someone (even if I secretly do agree), I took issue with her assertion. While I don’t actually have strong feelings one way or another on whether people use “gift” as a verb, I still feel compelled to defend it.
Apparently others wanted to also, because she decided to relent and say that “re-gift” was an acceptable verb, but not so for “gift.” But if someone could “re-gift,” wouldn’t it mean that something was “gifted” in the first place. The prefix “re” means the action has already occurred and it’s occurring again. You can’t repeat an action that hasn’t happened.
But “re-gift” is a stickier widget in my estimation because it throws a wrench into the expected transaction sequence.
For the purpose of this post, let’s go ahead and assume “gift” is a verb that means, “to present an item or compliment to someone as a gesture of goodwill, with no expectation of reciprocation.” In this case, Zubin can gift Zelda with a beer helmet.
If I didn’t know what it meant to “re-gift,” I would assume that it meant to return the gift, by the recipient, to the original gift-giver in a gesture of the same goodwill that was originally delivered to the recipient. Zubin likes Zelda and delivers a beer helmet to her. Zelda likes Zubin and returns the beer helmet to him. Zelda regifted the beer helmet to Zubin.
Not the case, in America, at least. To “re-gift” is to pass the original gift from the first recipient onto another, usually not as a gesture of goodwill, but perfunctory courtesy attached to some occasion. (Offloading crap onto someone who might prefer it more than we do.) For the second recipient, the gift is new and not “re-gifted.”
Of course, poor Zelda is stuck with a crummy beer helmet because Zubin has no taste nor any consideration for Zelda’s tastes. Jerk. However, Zelda has a nephew who makes Duffman look like a high-class sophisticate and she knows he’ll love the helmet. So, Zelda re-wraps the box and re-gifts the beer helmet to her nephew, Zain. For all Zain knows, the beer helmet was originally intended for him.
The act of “gifting,” transpires from Person A to Person B. But the act of “re-gifting” goes from Person B to Person C, not back to Person A. It isn’t super confounding, but it seems a bit more complicated than say, “rewash”, “rewind” or “revisit.” “Visiting” occurs when Party A travels to and peruses Location B or ponders or explores Notion B. Zubin visited Aruba; or Zubin visited the idea of a world without nuclear weapons. When Zubin returns for an extended weekend in Aruba, or re-ponders a nuke-free globe, he revisits these ideas. Obviously repeated action doesn’t have to be an exact loop. We “re-wrap” gifts that other people wrapped (see Zelda above), we “re-paint” walls that previous tenants have painted. These repetitions require us to follow a chain of actions and reactions (what, what!), and for this blogger, a looping action seems to be the easiest notion grasp immediately.
Getting back to “gift” as a verb, though. Obviously, just because a word has a repetition prefix (“re”) doesn’t mean that the root is a stand alone verb. The Earth revolves on a tilted axis. Gallileo rejected the notion of a geo-centric universe. I have used the word repeat several times here. All three root words are Latin for “to roll” and “to throw” and “to go/seek,” respectively. But these roots never quite made it to modern English, so we suffice with their affixed grandchildren. But the root of “re-gift” is very much alive and well in modern English. So, why deny its root a verb form? Don’t we “re-paper” walls once we’ve grown tired of the old wall paper? There’s a good noun-verb.
I don’t know why my friend randomly asserted that “gift” was not a verb. It was on Twitter – does one need a reason? But as she justified usage of “re-gift” beause it had a slangy quality, I suspect her rejection was based on a notion of approved or proper usage. I’m a little on the fence about that kind of stuff. While I believe pretty strongly that people should be conscientious of their language usage based on their audiences, and that formal grammar rules, at least in general – and certainly professsional – communication should be adhered to, I find it difficult to buy into the idea that a word – or even that some grammar rule-breaking – is illegitimate without institutional recognition. That’s probably for another post, as this one is already too long. So, let me just part with this: another blogger who feels very strongly that “to gift” is a verb did actual homework on the question, and backs it up with institutional recognition. He writes:
The verb “gift” is a perfectly good one. I just stopped in the library to check citations in the OED, and found citations going back to the early 1600s, including ones from Henry Fielding and Henry James (and lots of other blokes who aren’t called Henry). And it’s nice to have a word that specifically means “to give as a gift”; Spanish has one (“regalar”). “Donate” implies a sort of charitable gift, so it doesn’t really work.
(A little off-topic: don’t accept a gift from someone speaking German to you. It’s poison!)
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter to me if one accepts “gift” as a verb or not. I do find it awkward in verb form. Like a gangly teenager wearing a suit that’s just an inch and a half too short at the wrists. But even the dweebs of the word world need a little defense now and then.
(Letty gives the verb “gift” a wedgie.)
