I was recently in an argument with a friend who - equipped with an apparent understanding of the etymology of the words lend and borrow - insisted that to lend an object required not just the temporary exchange of its possession, but also a geographical displacement.
He compared the words lend and borrow to take and bring which involve a transition to/from one's locus, which are apparently linked (though I can't independently verify) to our subject words grammatically.
I argued that to so strongly stipulate (as he did) that an exchange was not a lending because the relocation was not significant (ie; it did not leave his personally defined location), is foolish given the complete generality / ambiguity of the word location. He insisted he could not lend me the salt-shaker as it traveled from his hand to mine because we were both common to the location 'this house', though I remarked that we sat in different locations; our respective chairs.
After much debate, we concluded that to require lending to constitute a relocation is a poor definition, since there are (according to him) obvious stipulations as to the definition of the location.
is any of this actually correct? Does lending actually have any requirement for a displacement of the lent object?
If so, what exactly are these conditions (or rather, if they are as contextually defined as we both probably expect, what is a more appropriate word than 'relocation'?)?
(I finally remarked that language is defined by the understanding of its speakers, and that I'd personally never heard a relocation was required in the lending of something. I also think the phrase "lend me your ears" doesn't beckon for their displacement...)