# lend / borrow



## ThomasK

Most people will consider these terms, or no, concepts, linked, I think, simply by the same act. But is that link expressed lexically in your language?

Dutch: *lenen aan/ lenen van*, same verb, but different preposition (to/ from); lenen/ ontlenen (dis-loan, or something literally)
English: *lend (loan)/ borrow*
French; *prêter/ emprunter*
Latin: *praestare/ promutuari *

BTW: we can do that with* teaching/learning *as well* (leren aan/van), buying/ selling (kopen, verkopen*)... But I suppose that existential link  (part of the same act) does not imply automatically that they share a common "root". I cannot see that for giving/ taking, for example.


----------



## apmoy70

Greek:

To lend: *«Δανείζω»* [ðaˈnizo] < Classical denominative v. *«δανείζω»  dăneí̯zō* < Classical neut. noun *«δάνειον»  dắnei̯ŏn* --> _loan_ < Classical neut. noun *«δάνος»  dắnŏs* --> _gift_ (from a possible PIE root *dh₂-no- _gift_ cf Skt. adj. दिन (diná), _divided, cut_).
To borrow: *«Δανείζομαι»* [ðaˈnizome] which is the mediopassive form of the active «δανείζω».
Loan: *«Δάνειο»* [ˈðani.o] (neut.) < Classical neut. noun *«δάνειον»  dắnei̯ŏn* (see above)


----------



## ThomasK

So the same root... Just one question: does the suffix (infix?) *-iz-* have a specific meaning?


----------



## apmoy70

ThomasK said:


> So the same root... Just one question: does the suffix (infix?) *-iz-* have a specific meaning?


Yes it's an indication that the verb is denominative and derives from (usually) a noun


----------



## ThomasK

OK, I had mistakenly thought the  -iz- caused the semantic shift from giving to lending... Mistake!

But how would you describe the difference between lending and loan(ing)? I think it is the same in English...


----------



## 810senior

Japanese:
*To lend:*貸すka-su

*To borrow:*借りるkar-iru

*Loan:* 貸しka-shi(credit; _what you own to someone_) or 借りka-ri(debt; _what you have to pay back to someone_)


----------



## ThomasK

So, I gather that "ka" is something like an underlying common root... Or isn't it?


----------



## Dymn

*Catalan*:

To lend: _prestar_, or _deixar _"to leave"
To borrow: _manllevar_, or more commonly _agafar _"to take"
Loan: _préstec_
Borrowing (loanword): _manlleu_, _préstec
_
*Spanish*:

To lend: _prestar, _or _dejar _"to leave"
To borrow: _tomar prestado _"take lent", _pedir prestado _"ask for lent", or _tomar _"to take"
Loan: _préstamo_
Borrowing (loanword): _préstamo_


----------



## apmoy70

ThomasK said:


> OK, I had mistakenly thought the  -iz- caused the semantic shift from giving to lending... Mistake!
> 
> But how would you describe the difference between lending and loan(ing)? I think it is the same in English...


From the verb's voice, mediopassive voice verbs are reflexive in Greek


----------



## ThomasK

Just wondering then: how do you build a sentence with mediopassive verb?
If you translate it literally, is it simply: "I borrow from you"?  Or is it different ("L borrow myself from you", which I'd consider reflective)?

ONe last question: does the -ei- in /_daneion/_ (as opposed to /danos/) a specific suffix/infix as well?

Efcharisto again!


----------



## momai

Arabic :
we have many sets of two Verbs that share root (linked) and mean either to lend or to borrow.
1) root :s-l-f
'slafa أسلف= to lend something especially money
'istalafa استلف=to borrow money
2) root .q-r-D
'qraDa أقرض=to lend
'iqtaraDa اقترض=to borrow
3) root : 3-y-r
'3aara أعار=to lend
'sta3aara استعار= to borrow


----------



## apmoy70

ThomasK said:


> Just wondering then: how do you build a sentence with mediopassive verb?
> If you translate it literally, is it simply: "I borrow from you"?  Or is it different ("L borrow myself from you", which I'd consider reflective)?


*I borrow from him*: *«δανείζομαι από αυτόν»* [ðaˈnizome aˈpo afˈton] (mediopassive voice)
*I loan to her*: *«δανείζω σ' αυτήν»* [ðaˈnizo s͜ afˈtin] (active voice)


ThomasK said:


> ONe last question: does the -ei- in /_daneion/_ (as opposed to /danos/) a specific suffix/infix as well?


The suffixes *«-ειος»* (masc. & fem), *«-ειον»* (neut.) are adjectival, indicating derivation from a noun (in this case from *«δάνος»*) but sometimes these adjectives while traveling through history get nominalised. The historic development therefore is *«δάνος»* (neuter noun) --> _gift_ > *«*δάνειος»* (masc. & fem. adjective), *«*δάνειον»* (neut. adjective) --> _gifted_ > *«δάνειον»* (nominalised neut.) --> _loan_


ThomasK said:


> Efcharisto again!


Graag gedaan


----------



## 810senior

ThomasK said:


> So, I gather that "ka" is something like an underlying common root... Or isn't it?


Maybe. I got no clue where these came from.


----------



## ThomasK

But if I am not mistaken, it is the first kanji (?) in the three words, or isn't it? Thanks a lot! I found somewhere that the symbol represents a shell and is often linked with money. Could that be true?


----------



## 810senior

@ThomasK, Yes that's true. It came from the fact that the shell(represented as *貝*) was used in currency in the ancient China. As for 借, I don't know much of it.


----------



## ThomasK

Great information. The site I referred to suggests three elements, I think: man (standing), twenty (above), sun.... Comment on the kanji(s): " Person 人 with 昔 phonetic. (動) borrow (動) rent", which I do not quite understand.

As for the languages sharing the same root for both: lending might be the basic act and the word for borrowing is derived from it. (See Arabic, Dutch, maybe French, Spanish...). Comments welcome of course...


----------



## ger4

ThomasK said:


> Dutch: *lenen aan/ lenen van*, same verb, but different preposition (to/ from); lenen/ ontlenen (dis-loan, or something literally)


German: As in Dutch, there is a common verb which can have both meanings: _leihen_ = to lend, to borrow. The prefix _aus_- (often translated as 'out') can be added (_ausleihen_) but it doesn't change the meaning significantly.

Combined with pronouns, the ambiguity disappears. I think there are many different options, these are just two examples:
_jemandem (DATIVE) etwas (ACCUSATIVE) leihen_ = to lend something to someone
_sich (REFLEXIVE) etwas (ACCUSATIVE) leihen_ = to borrow something

Latvian uses the verbs _dot_ ('to give') and _ņemt_ ('to take') and adds the prefix _aiz-_ (which can have meanings such as 'away'). In addition to that, the reflexive marker -_ies _is added to _ņemt_, so a literal translation would be something like 'to take oneself away something'.

_aizdot_ = to lend
_aizņemties_ = to borrow


----------



## ThomasK

INteresting to see how Latvian expresses borrowing/ lending! (I think I'll ask a Lithuanian student about this tomorrow)


----------



## 810senior

ThomasK said:


> As for the languages sharing the same root for both: lending might be the basic act and the word for borrowing is derived from it. (See Arabic, Dutch, maybe French, Spanish...). Comments welcome of course...



When it comes to middle Japanese, we exactly have these words representing borrowing and lending that have the same root in common: いらうirau(to borrow) and いらすirasu(to lend) which already became archaic in modern Japanese.


----------



## ThomasK

Isn't _ira*s*u _(lend) a derivation of _irau_ (borrow)? Then that would contradict my other findings. Is there some way of explaining the (meaning of the) *-s-* infix? Thanks again...


----------



## bibax

Czech:

to lend: *půjčiti*;
to borrow: *půjčiti si* (the verb itself is the same, *si* is the reflexive pronoun in dative);

*půjčiti* (to lend) < Old Czech *póžčiti* < *požitčiti (originally: to give sth to sb as a benefit);
*požitek* = benefit (like in: _fringe benefits_), *užitek* = avail, profit;

Similarly in Slovak:

*požičať* (to lend) and *požičať si* (to borrow);


----------



## ThomasK

Then I recognize a parallel with Greek (mediopassive or reflexive). So borrowing is something like lending to oneself, literally?


----------



## bibax

Exactly.

Půjčím *ti* knihu. = I'll lend *you* a book. (ti = to you, dative)
Půjčím *si* knihu. = I'll borrow a book. (lit. I'll lend *to *my*self* a book)

We have also a construction, used mostly for pecuniary/bank loans (půjčka = a loan):

poskytnouti půjčku = to provide a loan;
vzíti si půjčku = to take out a loan (vzíti = to take);

Půjčím si v bance. ~ Vezmu si půjčku v bance. = I'll take out a loan in a bank.

_Additional notes:_

1) půjčiti (si) is perfective, půjčovati (si) is imperfective.

2) prefixed verbs:

*vypůjčiti* (vy- = aus-):

Vypůjčím si knihu. = Půjčím si knihu. = I'll borrow a book.
Vypůjčím ti knihu. = I'll (as a mediator) borrow a book for you.

*zapůjčiti (si)* = commonly the same like půjčiti (si), but there is a legal difference;

*propůjčiti* = to bestow, to confer (e.g. an order, the act is conditioned and can be taken back);

3) in the Civil Codex, there are legal differences:

*výpůjčka* - if you borrow a unique thing (e.g. a picture, car, boat, ...);

*zápůjčka* - similar to _výpůjčka_ but the thing is substituable - typically money, a material (sand, cement, steel sheets, ...) or field crops;


----------



## Demiurg

Holger2014 said:


> German: As in Dutch, there is a common verb which can have both meanings: _leihen_ = to lend, to borrow. The prefix _aus_- (often translated as 'out') can be added (_ausleihen_) but it doesn't change the meaning significantly.
> 
> Combined with pronouns, the ambiguity disappears. I think there are many different options, these are just two examples:
> _jemandem (DATIVE) etwas (ACCUSATIVE) leihen_ = to lend something to someone
> _sich (REFLEXIVE) etwas (ACCUSATIVE) leihen_ = to borrow something



There's also "borgen" in German which is related to "borrow" but has the same ambiguity as "leihen" (_to lend / to borrow_). 

_Ich habe mir Peters Auto geliehen / geborgt. (I've borrowed Peter's car). _
_Peter hat mir sein Auto geliehen / geborgt. (Peter has lent me his car)._


----------



## Messquito

ThomasK said:


> So, I gather that "ka" is something like an underlying common root... Or isn't it?


As a Japanese learner, I've figured that verbs with か ka- have something to do with "trade, property":
So far I've come upon:
使う(tsukau) utilise
買う(kau) buy
換える(kaeru) change/exchange
換わる(kawaru) change/swap
貸す(kasu) lend
借りる(kawaru) borrow
かかる(kakaru) spend
かける(kakeru) be spent

Just an observation, I might be wrong.


----------



## Messquito

In Chinese, 借(jie4) covers the two and the structure of the sentence helps you decide:

Lend:
借＋somebody＋something-->lend somebody something
借＋something+給(give)+somebody-->lend something to somebody

Borrow:
跟(with)/向(to)+somebody+借+something-->borrow something from somebody

If you really want to put emphasis on the distinction, use 借出(lend) and 借入/來(borrow). (出＝out, 入=in, 來=come)

There is also 借走, where 走 means "walk away", but it does not mean "lend" as it might seem from the lenders perspective. It means to borrow, and it is used in a somewhat negative way, with the 走(away) implying that "the borrowers took it away and so it is not available."


----------



## ThomasK

Demiurg said:


> There's also "borgen" in German which is related to "borrow" but has the same ambiguity as "leihen" (_to lend / to borrow_).
> 
> _Ich habe mir Peters Auto geliehen / geborgt. (I've borrowed Peter's car).
> Peter hat mir sein Auto geliehen / geborgt. (Peter has lent me his car)._


Interesting. We have "borgen" as a warrant/ guarantee, and that is an addition to a loan: someone can borrow and then offer some kind of warrant. It reminds of a "pawn" (as in "pawn shop") or "pand", but I would not consider that a loan strictly speaking: it seems like a temporal exchange (or even a sale), not as un)-safe as a loan (though lending now implies mortgages the longer the more, whereas the lending used to take place without strict guarantees, I think)


----------



## Demiurg

ThomasK said:


> Interesting. We have "borgen" as a warrant/ guarantee, and that is an addition to a loan: someone can borrow and then offer some kind of warrant.



That's "bürgen" in German (noun: _Bürgschaft_).


----------



## ger4

There is one more German verb that should be mentioned: _verleihen_ (i.e. _leihen_ with the prefix _ver-_). Unlike _leihen _and _borgen_, _verleihen_ is quite unambiguous and can generally be translated as 'to lend', to lend out' or 'to distribute' (in the context of films, for instance). Related nouns are _Autoverleih_ ('car rental', 'car rental service'), _Filmverleih_ ('film distribution', 'film distributor') etc.

EDIT: Just like 'to lend', _verleihen_ is often used in a figurative sense as well.


----------



## ilocas2

Czech:

to lend - *půjčit* (colloquially *pučit*) (pf.)/ *půjčovat* (colloquially *pučovat*) (impf.)
to borrow - *půjčit si* (colloquially *pučit si*) (pf.)/ *půjčovat si* (colloquially *pučovat si*) (impf.)


----------



## Armas

Finnish:

_lainata_ "to lend / to borrow"
_laina_ "loan"


----------



## SuperXW

Messquito said:


> In Chinese, 借(jie4) covers the two and the structure of the sentence helps you decide:
> 
> Lend:
> 借＋somebody＋something-->lend somebody something
> 借＋something+給(give)+somebody-->lend something to somebody
> 
> Borrow:
> 跟(with)/向(to)+somebody+借+something-->borrow something from somebody
> 
> If you really want to put emphasis on the distinction, use 借出(lend) and 借入/來(borrow). (出＝out, 入=in, 來=come)
> 
> There is also 借走, where 走 means "walk away", but it does not mean "lend" as it might seem from the lenders perspective. It means to borrow, and it is used in a somewhat negative way, with the 走(away) implying that "the borrowers took it away and so it is not available."


Chinese is very tricky. Without a context, 他借了錢 could mean either "he lent money" or "he borrowed money".


----------



## mataripis

To lend in Tagalog may mean to provide( mag laan) or to give( mag bigay) With certain conditions. The use of word lend is applicable to someone who has the capital or fund.The term lender is derived.The second word Borrow is Hiram or humiram in Tagalog.It is used precisely when the borrower encounters a sudden need to pay something that arrive not in time. In the case of debt( takes longer period) it is Utang in Tagalog. This reminds me the proper use of these 3 words. The first two are used in case there is a suddeñ need to pay or to purchase but will be paid soon by the borrower. The third word is tricky cause utang or debt may take longer period of time.Utang has archaic form Hutang which is also Danio in Spanish and Greek.So if someone use the word utang,think twice coz it may be forgotten.


----------



## 123xyz

Macedonian:

*позајми (од)* - borrow (from)
*позајми (на)* - lend (to)

Same word, different preposition

Also:

*земе на заем* - lit. take on loan
*даде на заем* - lit. give on loan

The second pair is used for official loans, e.g. when banks are involved. They wouldn't be used when a student lends his classmate a pencil.


----------



## merquiades

Someone asked me today "Tu peux me prêter ta clef....?  and it got me thinking about lending and borrowing...  so I decided to open back up this thread.   Some languages prefer using _lend_ rather than _borrow_ or viceversa, and it could reflect the way people (or maybe even cultures) view this action.  What does it really mean to choose "can you lend" or "can I borrow"?  For example, in English even if I could say "could you lend me your key, your pen, your....?"  I would probably prefer almost always to rephrase it "Can I borrow your key, a pen...?"


----------



## KalAlbè

*Haitian Creole:*
Lend - Prete
Borrow - Prete

The meaning will be determined by the subject / doer.


----------



## TheCrociato91

*Italian*.

_to lend_ = _prestare
to borrow_ =_ prendere in prestito_ (lit. _to take as a loan_)

I feel like we tend to use "lend" much more often in questions and requests: _Mi presti una penna? Mi puoi prestare una penna? Mi potresti prestare una penna? Mi presteresti una penna?
_
What is more, in case we were to use "to borrow", I think we'd be much more likely to say just "prendere" rather than "prendere in prestito": _Posso prendere (in prestito) una penna?_ (lit. _Can I take..._?)

Possibly the above is due to the fact that "to lend" is Italian is a single verb, whereas we need to resort to a phrase to say "to borrow".


----------



## KalAlbè

*Portuguese:*

Lend - *Emprestar *(e.g. _Eu emprestei um lápis para João - I lent John a pencil_)
Borrow - *Pegar emprestado* (e.g. _Peguei um lápis emprestado do João - I borrowed a pencil from John_)


----------



## Awwal12

ThomasK said:


> But is that link expressed lexically in your language?


Well, it's complicated. Let's just consider all Russian expressions (in the perfective aspect) and their meanings.

позаимствовать (pozaímstvovat') - to borrow;
взять взаймы (vzyát' vzaymý) - to borrow, to take a loan (i.e. to borrow money); a bit more literally, "to take into loans";
взять в долг (vzyát' v dólg) - to borrow, to take a loan; literally, "to take into the debt";
занять (zanyát') - to borrow; also, colloquially, to loan;
одолжить (odolzhít') - to loan; also, colloquially, to borrow, to take a loan; lit. "to bedebten";
дать взаймы (dát' vzaymý) - to loan, lit. "to give into loans" (cf. "взять взаймы" above);
дать в долг (dát' v dólg) - to loan, lit. "to give into the debt" (likewise, cf. "взять в долг" above).

To summarize everything:
1. While Russian basically distinguishes loaning from borrowing (the two expressions with the same semantics but different perspective), morphologically that distinction isn't expressed as well as in English. The basic words for borrowing are pretty old, but are closely related etymologically to the words for taking and having (the old good *-jĭm- root, with numerous historical alterations and in different morphological surroundings). Loaning, however, has to apply to the concept of "debt", or refers to borrowing "reversing" it with lexical means. Borrowing, in fact, can refer to the debts as well, through more "analytic" descriptions.
(Don't let the "loans" appearing in the examples to confuse you; you can call them "borrowings of money" if you want. The point is just that certain expressions can be used intransitively, acquiring an incorporated semantic argument in the process.)
2. Certain expressions for loaning and borrowing become ambivalent in the colloquial language (even though it's branded as "illiteracy"). In that case the difference is expressed just by the verbal government (indeed, you always borrow *from* someone but lend *to* someone). The same thing actually happens in colloquial/dialectal English as well, just probably to a more limited degree.


----------

