Meaning: take

Illustrative Context

Take the money when you go.

Target Sense

• This is a complex semantic field, in which the English lexeme take and its translation equivalents in many languages may cover many overlapping sub-senses.

• The IE-CoR target sense, as in the illustrative context, is that of moving an object by having it with you as you yourself move. Typically this comes in natural combination with reference also to the necessary initial act of first taking that object into your ‘possession’ (whether temporary or permanent).

• Select the most basic verb, which will typically be generic enough to cover both of these aspects together by default (even if it pragmatically, in appropriate contexts, it may also be interpretable as focused on just one of those two senses). So in practice:

  • Avoid lexemes inherently more narrowly restricted to or focused on the prerequisite act of removal, taking away or taking possession (e.g. grab, seize), without also including the sense of moving (with) that object further.
  • Likewise, avoid lexemes inherently more narrowly restricted to the sense of just having an object with you as you move (e.g. carry, bear, have on you), without also including the sense of first taking possession of it.

• The meaning here is not carry. That is: avoid lexemes that are more narrowly focused on a particular physical means by which an object is moved e.g. English carry, French porter, German tragen.

• The meaning here is not bring. That is: the term selected should ideally be generic also in the sense of not being narrowly deictic and not focused on a particular direction of movement, e.g. French prendre not emporter nor apporter.

• Some languages may not have a basic generic cover-term lexeme, but only multiple narrower and explicitly deictic and directional verbs. In such cases only, then select the verb with the deictic sense of taking away from rather than bringing towards the deictic reference point. As in English, the most neutral verb may in appropriate contexts also allow of a more specific directional sense (usually the away from direction, given the definition here). This is not an issue so long as that basic lexeme is also used in deixis-free contexts. In most English varieties, for example, if the deictic reference point is A, then one takes from A to B, one brings from B to A, but decisive for the IE-CoR definition is that one also takes (not brings) from B to C, where neither place is the deictic reference point.

• The lexeme selected must be applicable to objects small enough to be picked up and carried in the hand, as in the illustrative context. It may also be applicable to larger objects, and indeed to taking people and animals, in the sense of leading or even carrying them (e.g. for babies). Do not, however, select a verb that is specific to taking only people or animals (e.g. French amener, emmener), or specific to the sense of lead.

• The lexeme selected must be applicable to things that can be taken in the hand, and moved by the person walking. In many languages (including English) the most basic term may also cover taking by vehicle. In languages that have different verbs for taking by walking or by vehicle (as in many Slavic languages), do not select a verb that is specific to leading or taking by vehicle.

• Select the most neutral and generic lexeme, without any other additional meaning specification (wherever possible).

  • Avoid intensifying terms that emphasise the speed (or slowness) of taking possession, or the speed of movement with the thing taken.
  • Avoid terms that emphasise the abruptness or force of taking possession: e.g. grab, seize.
  • Avoid terms that refer also to ownership or to the taking as specifically temporary or permanent. Especially avoid terms specific to the sense of steal.

• On a morphological level, too, the most basic, neutral and generic lexeme will usually have the least additional morphology that might add more specific meaning specifications. Within this semantic field, many languages have multiple derivational variants based around a basic root, e.g. English take+away and German mit+nehmen. Normally, if such morphology is still transparent, then enter the basic form of the lexeme, without additional morphemes. So the lexeme in English is just plain take, in German just plain nehmen.

• Nonetheless, deep etymology is not relevant. Original additional morphology can become fused and lose its original specifying sense, and/or an original bare root may no longer exist alone. French prendre is the basic and correct term in this meaning, as it has long since been reanalysed as a single root morpheme, even if ultimately derived with an original Latin prefix pre-.