For me, you can’t use ‘give’ if there was no action on the giver’s behalf, but coerced action counts as action. Same with take – you ‘take’ something only if you’re capable of a ‘take’ action. So if you’re in a coma, you can’t ‘take’ anything offered to you (except in idiomatic phrases where action on the taker isn’t expected, e.g. “to take abuse”).
This is why I seriously believe that OP’s image is controversial more do to a difference in our linguistic understanding of the word “give” than do to a differing understanding of the facts.
Edit: I think what may be happening here is the so-called “non-central” fallacy.
I think this is the source of our disagreement. In my mind, the word “give” has at most a mild connotation of volition.
Interesting. So like whats the dividing line between ‘being given something’ and ‘taking something’?
For me, you can’t use ‘give’ if there was no action on the giver’s behalf, but coerced action counts as action. Same with take – you ‘take’ something only if you’re capable of a ‘take’ action. So if you’re in a coma, you can’t ‘take’ anything offered to you (except in idiomatic phrases where action on the taker isn’t expected, e.g. “to take abuse”).
This is why I seriously believe that OP’s image is controversial more do to a difference in our linguistic understanding of the word “give” than do to a differing understanding of the facts.
Edit: I think what may be happening here is the so-called “non-central” fallacy.