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.
So...
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...)