4

It is a very basic question that up to now I don't quite understand. あげる just gives additional information about the direction of action. Because 貸す provides direction of action clearly, I think あげる is no longer needed.

In other words, sentence B below should be more efficient than the sentence A without loss of any meaning. What do you think?

A: 僕は君にお金を貸してあげた。

B: 僕は君にお金を貸した。

In English they are both translated to "I lent money to you.".

8

あげる just gives additional information about the direction of action.

No, that's not correct. The subsidiary verb あげる implies the subject is doing something beneficial to the other person. So depending on the context, Sentence A may sound like the speaker is asking for a word of thanks.

In Sentence B, on the other hand, the speaker is describing what he/she did matter-of-factly.

See:

5

sentence B below should be more efficient than the sentence A without loss of any meaning.

If we take the whole meaning to be "I lent you money," then B is more efficient and the あげる in A is redundant.

If, however, we take a more nuanced view of what A and B are saying, then A differs in adding additional information. The あげる implies the subject is doing the recipient a favor whereas the other sentence merely states the fact of lending.

Both are translated "I lent money to you"

Are they? If so, then I'd say that we're losing information in the translation of A.

B1: I lent you money.

B2: I lent money to you.

(I'd say B1 is actually more natural English than the translation you're suggesting).

A1 : I let you borrow money from me.

A2: I kindly lent you money.

A3: I volunteered to loan you money.

A4: I lent you money.

Depending on the context, A4 may be fine or it may lose something valuable and important for understanding the rest of the dialogue.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.