Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Possible Duplicate:
“Eat” is to “feed” as “drink” is to what?

Feed: to give food to

When I give the dog a little milk to drink, I say I gave the dog some milk

That however, doesn't seem quite correct. Which word should I use in place of fed for liquids?

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Carlo_R., KitFox Dec 16 '12 at 19:57

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

3  
I'd just go with "I gave the dog some milk". Tangentially related: You quench your thirst. What do you do with your hunger? –  RegDwigнt Dec 16 '12 at 18:26
    
I find quite a few hits for feeding critters water. So it does get used, although clearly water is not food, or you would not say “food and water”. Similarly, you can go three weeks without food but only three days without water. And yet apparently you can feed something food and water. You hear people speaking of watering their horses, but milking one’s cows is something else again. –  tchrist Dec 16 '12 at 18:27
1  
Agreed. But I can't help but wonder if there is a single perfectly apt word. –  DarkCthulhu Dec 16 '12 at 18:31

1 Answer 1

up vote 5 down vote accepted

As for a liquid equivalent of feed, English doesn't have one. To water is the conventional equivalent. You can water any animal in the sense of giving them water to drink. Indeed, to feed and water is a fixed conjoined verb phrase.

To water in this sense is a straighforward Provisional Verbing, where the subject provides the direct object with the verb's noun. In this case it's water; but other fluids present problems.

Milk, for instance, being a liquid produced by animals, already has a Privative Verbing

  • to milk a cow/goat/laugh/sucker

In this sense, the subject deprives the direct object of the verb's noun (milk, or its metaphoric analogs in milking a laugh or milking a sucker), by removing it; the Privative is the opposite of the Provisional. So that conflicts with a Provisional use.

It is possible in some cases to use the same verbed noun in both senses, as in seed a pepper (remove seeds) vs seed a lawn (add seeds); context distinguishes nicely here, because both are conventional activities.

Nevertheless, to milk won't work provisionally; I doubt anybody would understand a request to milk the baby as anything but a private joke. And providing non-humans with milk is not a conventional enough cultural activity to rate its own idiom.

share|improve this answer
    
Brilliant explanation. Could you please add the best way in which I could refer to the activity? Is I gave the dog some milk as suggested by @regdwigh the best alternative? –  DarkCthulhu Dec 16 '12 at 19:44
2  
Yeah, probably. It certainly does the job, and that's what phrases are for. –  John Lawler Dec 16 '12 at 20:11

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