borrow and lend

[diamondcutter]

Dear teachers, would you please tell me whether the verbs “borrow” and “lend” are one-off verbs (punctual verbs) like arrive, leave, come, etc. or durative verbs like live, stay, keep, etc. or whether they can be used as both one-off verbs (punctual verbs) and durative verbs?

 

[5jj]

Do these labels matter? Have you examples of sentences in which this labelling is important?

 

[diamondcutter]

Thanks, 5jj.

I'm afraid I have to say grammar is important for English learners in a non-English environment. Would you please be kind enough to answer my questions? I would appreciate it if you could help me.

 

[emsr2d2]

Thanks, 5jj.

I'm afraid I have to say grammar is important for English learners in a non-English environment. Would you please be kind enough to answer my questions? I would appreciate it if you could help me.

We'll answer your question when you answer 5jj's second question in post #2.

 

[diamondcutter]

Thanks, emsr2d2.

Do these labels matter?
I’m afraid I have to say the answer is yes.

Have you examples of sentences in which this labelling is important?
Yes, I have.

Context:
At the school library, Tom asks the librarian.
Tom:
1. How long can I borrow this book for?
Or:
2. How long can I keep this book?
Librarian:
3. You can borrow it for five days.
4. You can keep it for five days.

Sentence 1 needs the preposition “for” while Sentence 2 doesn’t. There must be a reason. I think the reason is that the verbs “borrow” and “keep” belong to different groups of verbs. They have different features. “Borrow” is a one-off verb (punctual verb) while “keep” is a durative verb. So when “borrow” and such kind of verbs + “for + a period of time”, the “for” phrase refers to the purpose of the activities, not the duration. But when “keep” and such kind of verbs + “for + a period of time”, the “for” phrase refers to the duration of the activities. What do you think of my summary?

 

[jutfrank]

I wouldn't say that the for-phrase with punctual verbs like borrow expresses 'purpose'. It just expresses the period of time that the borrowing lasts.

Some verbs have within their meaning an implicit beginning and end point, and borrow is one such verb. Unlike keep, which as a state verb has unlimited duration, borrow carries a temporary sense. When you borrow something, even though the action is punctual, you know there will be a future point in time when the effect of the punctual action will cease.

Here's another example:

I'm going to Italy for five days.

Five days isn't the purpose of the trip but simply the length of the stay.

 

[diamondcutter]

Thanks, Jutfrank.
But I still think the for-phrase with punctual verbs like borrow expresses 'purpose'.

Let me try to explain the reason.
Context:
I borrowed a book from the school library on Monday. The librarian told me that I could keep it for six days. That is to say I have to return the book next Monday.
I think I can tell this to my friends who visit me on any of the following days before I return the book:
① I’ve borrowed this book for six days.
But if I want to tell them how long I have read the book on each day, I think I can’t use the verb “borrow” like this:
On Tuesday: ② I’ve borrowed the book for one day.
On Wednesday: ③ I’ve borrowed the book for two days.
On Thursday: ④ I’ve borrowed the book for three days.
...
Sentences ②, ③ and ④ are all wrong. I think the verb “borrowed” in them should be replaced with the verbs “read” or “kept”.

Why can I say Sentence ① to my friends on any of the days before I return the book but I can’t say Sentences ②, ③ and ④? The reason is that for six days in Sentence ① actually means for six days’ reading (purpose). And the for-phrases in Sentences ②, ③ and ④ mean for one day’s reading, for two days’ reading and for three days’ reading respectively. That’s ridiculous.

And the same is for this sentence:
I'm going to Italy for five days.
In fact, for five days here means for five days’ stay (purpose).
And in this sentence: I've only come for an hour, for an hour means for an hour’s stay (purpose).

I’d like to read your comments on my understanding.

 

[5jj]

T
In fact, for five days here means for five days’ stay (purpose).
And in this sentence: I've only come for an hour, for an hour means for an hour’s stay (purpose).

purpose :cross:
duration :tick:

 

[diamondcutter]

Thanks, 5jj.

But I still don’t know how to answer my students’ question. They asked me why Sentence 1: How long can I borrow this book for needs the preposition “for” while Sentence 2: How long can I keep this book doesn’t.
Maybe I can only answer them like this?
Just say the two sentences as the native speakers say. Don’t think too much.

 

[Skrej]

I wouldn't say 'for' is even required in sentence #1. You could use 'for' with sentence #2, but again it's not required.

At least in my variant, all the following are possible: It's just the speaker's whim whether to add 'for' or not. It has nothing to do with duration, purpose, verb type, grammar, moon phases, or astral alignment.

How long can I borrow this book?
How long can I borrow this book for?
How long can I keep this book?
How long can I keep this book for?

 

[jutfrank]

I think diamondcutter is actually onto an interesting semantic distinction here.

I think that when we use verbs with a stative meaning, we tend not to use the preposition for, but when the verbs are not obviously stative (such as borrow and go in the posts above), then the preposition becomes (at least more?) necessary.

How long are you staying?
How long have you had it?
How long can I keep it?

The above are all perfectly fine without for, as they're all obviously stative. However, these are not so clear:

How long are you going (for)?
How long can I borrow it (for)?
How long did you rent it (for)?

I think that the fors are pretty much necessary in the examples above, as the verbs are not stative in meaning.

If the sentence How long can I borrow it? seems okay to a native speaker, I suspect it may be that he is interpreting the meaning of the verb borrow as stative rather than punctual, where it's identical to How long can I keep it?

In any case, in all the examples above, the for-phrase does not relate to purpose but duration.

 

[emsr2d2]

However, these are not so clear:

How long are you going (for)?
How long can I borrow it (for)?
How long did you rent it (for)?

I think that the fors are pretty much necessary in these examples, as the verbs are not stative.

If the sentence How long can I borrow it? seems okay to a native speaker, I suspect it may be that he is interpreting the meaning of the verb borrow as stative, where the meaning of the sentence is identical to How long can I keep it?

I'd go much further than "These are not so clear". For me, they're wrong. I'd be surprised to find any native speaker who finds "How long can I borrow it?" grammatical.

 

[diamondcutter]

Thank you all.

Context：
I borrowed The Little Prince from my school library on Sept. 1. The librarian told me that I had to return it on Sept. 20.

On Sept. 3, at home, my wife found the book.
My wife: You borrowed The Little Prince. (1) How long have you borrowed it for?/(2) How long did you borrow it for?
Me: (3) I’ve borrowed it for 20 days./(4) I borrowed it for 20 days.

My question:
In this context, both (1) How long have you borrowed it for? and (2) How long did you borrow it for? are correct, but sentence #2 is more natural. And the same is for my reply. Am I right?

On Sept. 25, my wife found the book was still on my desk.
My wife: You haven’t returned the book. I remember you told me you had borrowed it for 20 days.
Me: Oh, no. I forgot the book. (5) I’ve kept it for 25 days./(6) I’ve borrowed it for 25 days.

My question:
In this context, sentence #5 is correct, but sentence #6 is wrong. The verb “borrow” can’t be used in this situation. Am I right?

 

[Tarheel]

I would say:

I've had it for 25 days. (Not borrowed.)

P.S. The librarian said you had to return it by Sept. 25.

 

[diamondcutter]

Would you please tell me whether sentence #6 is also acceptable in the context in post #13?

 

[5jj]

It is not.

 

[jutfrank]

I see where your questions are directed.

I borrowed it for 20 days.

The for-phrase here expresses a duration starting at the point where you take out the book at the library and finishing at the time it's due back. In all, the period is 20 days.

I've borrowed it for 25 days.

This is wrong because you mean that you've had it for 25 days. In other words, 25 days is the duration passed from the day you took out the book until now.

When we say borrow something + for-phrase, the for-phrase is the duration that both parties agree should be the loan period. That is, there is an agreed and fixed beginning and end point. Both you as the borrower and the library agree on this period.

So the for-phrase still expresses a period (not a purpose) but it's a period that is negotiable and fixed by both parties.

 

[diamondcutter]

Would you please tell me whether sentence #6 is also acceptable in the context in post #13?

It’s interesting. It seems that some American English speakers think it’s acceptable. Maybe it’s one difference between British and American Englishes. Do you think so?