Why is it “take a leak?”












8















Why is the sometimes-used expression to urinate "take a leak" or "take a piss", instead of "give a leak" or "give a piss".



I looked it up using a search engine, and didn't find any good answers.










share|improve this question


















  • 3





    Take, have, and get are "little verbs" that don't mean anything and can be used to make a noun into a verb, if one needs to. They're idiomatic, though -- which ones varies: take a shit/piss/bath/shower/leak/dive, have breakfast/some rest/a shit/a piss/a bath/a swim/a run, get some food/some rest/a shower/a haircut/a shave.

    – John Lawler
    8 hours ago











  • @JohnLawler Thanks. I'd be very interested if you can expand your comment into an answer. Are you saying in some contexts take, have, and get don't mean anything, and in other contexts they do?

    – RockPaperLizard
    8 hours ago











  • Yes. Like auxiliary verbs and articles and prepositions and complementizers, there are other words that are nuts and bolts of grammar rather than meaningful lexical elements. Many of them have some meanings that can get out in certain circumstances, but much of their use is as part of a construction.

    – John Lawler
    7 hours ago











  • Why do you think "give" would fit better?

    – Azor Ahai
    5 hours ago











  • @AzorAhai Because it seems to fit better than "take". When a person urinates, they are not taking anything, but are, in some ways, giving something.

    – RockPaperLizard
    47 mins ago
















8















Why is the sometimes-used expression to urinate "take a leak" or "take a piss", instead of "give a leak" or "give a piss".



I looked it up using a search engine, and didn't find any good answers.










share|improve this question


















  • 3





    Take, have, and get are "little verbs" that don't mean anything and can be used to make a noun into a verb, if one needs to. They're idiomatic, though -- which ones varies: take a shit/piss/bath/shower/leak/dive, have breakfast/some rest/a shit/a piss/a bath/a swim/a run, get some food/some rest/a shower/a haircut/a shave.

    – John Lawler
    8 hours ago











  • @JohnLawler Thanks. I'd be very interested if you can expand your comment into an answer. Are you saying in some contexts take, have, and get don't mean anything, and in other contexts they do?

    – RockPaperLizard
    8 hours ago











  • Yes. Like auxiliary verbs and articles and prepositions and complementizers, there are other words that are nuts and bolts of grammar rather than meaningful lexical elements. Many of them have some meanings that can get out in certain circumstances, but much of their use is as part of a construction.

    – John Lawler
    7 hours ago











  • Why do you think "give" would fit better?

    – Azor Ahai
    5 hours ago











  • @AzorAhai Because it seems to fit better than "take". When a person urinates, they are not taking anything, but are, in some ways, giving something.

    – RockPaperLizard
    47 mins ago














8












8








8


2






Why is the sometimes-used expression to urinate "take a leak" or "take a piss", instead of "give a leak" or "give a piss".



I looked it up using a search engine, and didn't find any good answers.










share|improve this question














Why is the sometimes-used expression to urinate "take a leak" or "take a piss", instead of "give a leak" or "give a piss".



I looked it up using a search engine, and didn't find any good answers.







word-usage slang






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 8 hours ago









RockPaperLizardRockPaperLizard

4561818




4561818








  • 3





    Take, have, and get are "little verbs" that don't mean anything and can be used to make a noun into a verb, if one needs to. They're idiomatic, though -- which ones varies: take a shit/piss/bath/shower/leak/dive, have breakfast/some rest/a shit/a piss/a bath/a swim/a run, get some food/some rest/a shower/a haircut/a shave.

    – John Lawler
    8 hours ago











  • @JohnLawler Thanks. I'd be very interested if you can expand your comment into an answer. Are you saying in some contexts take, have, and get don't mean anything, and in other contexts they do?

    – RockPaperLizard
    8 hours ago











  • Yes. Like auxiliary verbs and articles and prepositions and complementizers, there are other words that are nuts and bolts of grammar rather than meaningful lexical elements. Many of them have some meanings that can get out in certain circumstances, but much of their use is as part of a construction.

    – John Lawler
    7 hours ago











  • Why do you think "give" would fit better?

    – Azor Ahai
    5 hours ago











  • @AzorAhai Because it seems to fit better than "take". When a person urinates, they are not taking anything, but are, in some ways, giving something.

    – RockPaperLizard
    47 mins ago














  • 3





    Take, have, and get are "little verbs" that don't mean anything and can be used to make a noun into a verb, if one needs to. They're idiomatic, though -- which ones varies: take a shit/piss/bath/shower/leak/dive, have breakfast/some rest/a shit/a piss/a bath/a swim/a run, get some food/some rest/a shower/a haircut/a shave.

    – John Lawler
    8 hours ago











  • @JohnLawler Thanks. I'd be very interested if you can expand your comment into an answer. Are you saying in some contexts take, have, and get don't mean anything, and in other contexts they do?

    – RockPaperLizard
    8 hours ago











  • Yes. Like auxiliary verbs and articles and prepositions and complementizers, there are other words that are nuts and bolts of grammar rather than meaningful lexical elements. Many of them have some meanings that can get out in certain circumstances, but much of their use is as part of a construction.

    – John Lawler
    7 hours ago











  • Why do you think "give" would fit better?

    – Azor Ahai
    5 hours ago











  • @AzorAhai Because it seems to fit better than "take". When a person urinates, they are not taking anything, but are, in some ways, giving something.

    – RockPaperLizard
    47 mins ago








3




3





Take, have, and get are "little verbs" that don't mean anything and can be used to make a noun into a verb, if one needs to. They're idiomatic, though -- which ones varies: take a shit/piss/bath/shower/leak/dive, have breakfast/some rest/a shit/a piss/a bath/a swim/a run, get some food/some rest/a shower/a haircut/a shave.

– John Lawler
8 hours ago





Take, have, and get are "little verbs" that don't mean anything and can be used to make a noun into a verb, if one needs to. They're idiomatic, though -- which ones varies: take a shit/piss/bath/shower/leak/dive, have breakfast/some rest/a shit/a piss/a bath/a swim/a run, get some food/some rest/a shower/a haircut/a shave.

– John Lawler
8 hours ago













@JohnLawler Thanks. I'd be very interested if you can expand your comment into an answer. Are you saying in some contexts take, have, and get don't mean anything, and in other contexts they do?

– RockPaperLizard
8 hours ago





@JohnLawler Thanks. I'd be very interested if you can expand your comment into an answer. Are you saying in some contexts take, have, and get don't mean anything, and in other contexts they do?

– RockPaperLizard
8 hours ago













Yes. Like auxiliary verbs and articles and prepositions and complementizers, there are other words that are nuts and bolts of grammar rather than meaningful lexical elements. Many of them have some meanings that can get out in certain circumstances, but much of their use is as part of a construction.

– John Lawler
7 hours ago





Yes. Like auxiliary verbs and articles and prepositions and complementizers, there are other words that are nuts and bolts of grammar rather than meaningful lexical elements. Many of them have some meanings that can get out in certain circumstances, but much of their use is as part of a construction.

– John Lawler
7 hours ago













Why do you think "give" would fit better?

– Azor Ahai
5 hours ago





Why do you think "give" would fit better?

– Azor Ahai
5 hours ago













@AzorAhai Because it seems to fit better than "take". When a person urinates, they are not taking anything, but are, in some ways, giving something.

– RockPaperLizard
47 mins ago





@AzorAhai Because it seems to fit better than "take". When a person urinates, they are not taking anything, but are, in some ways, giving something.

– RockPaperLizard
47 mins ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















9














It is because one takes an action, leak or piss denote actions, and the noun forms of these actions ended up using take instead of other available verbs.



To "leak," meaning to "make water" or piss, was first a verb. Shakespeare, Henry IV part 1:




Why, they will allow us ne'er a jordan, and then we
leak in your chimney; and your chamber-lie breeds
fleas like a loach.




And piss, as a verb, goes back to Middle English. Chaucer, the Parson's Tale:




An hound, whan he comth by the roser or by othere beautees, thogh he may nat pisse, yet wole he heue vp his leg and make a contenaunce to pisse.




By the 20th century, both words could also serve as nouns, denoting the action of leaking or pissing, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. At the same time, they acquired a periphrastic use in the phrase to take a leak:




(Tropic of Cancer, 1934) I stood there taking a leak.



(Heartless, 1934) There were puddles of sludge from the mud of the road, the waste water of the saloon, and any number of passing drunkards who thought to stop and take a piss on their way through.




Why take? Basically, take in this usage emphasizes the following noun. When verbs do this, they ares called delexical or empty because the verb is less important than the following noun. To take a piss => to piss. To take a leak => to leak. It's not that anything is being literally taken, as with other meanings of to take, but rather that here the verb introduces an action. Here is how the OED explains take as a delexical verb that emphasizes carrying out the following action:




81.a. To make, do, perform (an act, action, movement, etc.); to carry out. Often take forms with the object a phrase which is a periphrastic equivalent of the cognate verb: e.g. to take a leap is equivalent to to leap, to take a look to to look, to take one's departure to to depart, etc.




"have, v." has virtually the same entry (22). It's hard to answer why take was the verb and not, say, have. Without direct evidence (which would be very hard to come by for common periphrastic forms), I can only guess that it's an accident of use.






share|improve this answer































    1














    Those are Delexical Verbs.
    this should help you understand them better:



    https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/english-grammar/delexical-verbs-have-take-make-and-give






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      This is currently a link only answer which is frowned upon on Stack Exchange. Please expand your answer to include the relevant information from the link. (e.g. What is a "delexical verb", in what situations would you use them, and most critically, why you would choose "take" instead of "give" in the example sentences?)

      – R.M.
      4 hours ago











    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "97"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f488421%2fwhy-is-it-take-a-leak%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    9














    It is because one takes an action, leak or piss denote actions, and the noun forms of these actions ended up using take instead of other available verbs.



    To "leak," meaning to "make water" or piss, was first a verb. Shakespeare, Henry IV part 1:




    Why, they will allow us ne'er a jordan, and then we
    leak in your chimney; and your chamber-lie breeds
    fleas like a loach.




    And piss, as a verb, goes back to Middle English. Chaucer, the Parson's Tale:




    An hound, whan he comth by the roser or by othere beautees, thogh he may nat pisse, yet wole he heue vp his leg and make a contenaunce to pisse.




    By the 20th century, both words could also serve as nouns, denoting the action of leaking or pissing, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. At the same time, they acquired a periphrastic use in the phrase to take a leak:




    (Tropic of Cancer, 1934) I stood there taking a leak.



    (Heartless, 1934) There were puddles of sludge from the mud of the road, the waste water of the saloon, and any number of passing drunkards who thought to stop and take a piss on their way through.




    Why take? Basically, take in this usage emphasizes the following noun. When verbs do this, they ares called delexical or empty because the verb is less important than the following noun. To take a piss => to piss. To take a leak => to leak. It's not that anything is being literally taken, as with other meanings of to take, but rather that here the verb introduces an action. Here is how the OED explains take as a delexical verb that emphasizes carrying out the following action:




    81.a. To make, do, perform (an act, action, movement, etc.); to carry out. Often take forms with the object a phrase which is a periphrastic equivalent of the cognate verb: e.g. to take a leap is equivalent to to leap, to take a look to to look, to take one's departure to to depart, etc.




    "have, v." has virtually the same entry (22). It's hard to answer why take was the verb and not, say, have. Without direct evidence (which would be very hard to come by for common periphrastic forms), I can only guess that it's an accident of use.






    share|improve this answer




























      9














      It is because one takes an action, leak or piss denote actions, and the noun forms of these actions ended up using take instead of other available verbs.



      To "leak," meaning to "make water" or piss, was first a verb. Shakespeare, Henry IV part 1:




      Why, they will allow us ne'er a jordan, and then we
      leak in your chimney; and your chamber-lie breeds
      fleas like a loach.




      And piss, as a verb, goes back to Middle English. Chaucer, the Parson's Tale:




      An hound, whan he comth by the roser or by othere beautees, thogh he may nat pisse, yet wole he heue vp his leg and make a contenaunce to pisse.




      By the 20th century, both words could also serve as nouns, denoting the action of leaking or pissing, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. At the same time, they acquired a periphrastic use in the phrase to take a leak:




      (Tropic of Cancer, 1934) I stood there taking a leak.



      (Heartless, 1934) There were puddles of sludge from the mud of the road, the waste water of the saloon, and any number of passing drunkards who thought to stop and take a piss on their way through.




      Why take? Basically, take in this usage emphasizes the following noun. When verbs do this, they ares called delexical or empty because the verb is less important than the following noun. To take a piss => to piss. To take a leak => to leak. It's not that anything is being literally taken, as with other meanings of to take, but rather that here the verb introduces an action. Here is how the OED explains take as a delexical verb that emphasizes carrying out the following action:




      81.a. To make, do, perform (an act, action, movement, etc.); to carry out. Often take forms with the object a phrase which is a periphrastic equivalent of the cognate verb: e.g. to take a leap is equivalent to to leap, to take a look to to look, to take one's departure to to depart, etc.




      "have, v." has virtually the same entry (22). It's hard to answer why take was the verb and not, say, have. Without direct evidence (which would be very hard to come by for common periphrastic forms), I can only guess that it's an accident of use.






      share|improve this answer


























        9












        9








        9







        It is because one takes an action, leak or piss denote actions, and the noun forms of these actions ended up using take instead of other available verbs.



        To "leak," meaning to "make water" or piss, was first a verb. Shakespeare, Henry IV part 1:




        Why, they will allow us ne'er a jordan, and then we
        leak in your chimney; and your chamber-lie breeds
        fleas like a loach.




        And piss, as a verb, goes back to Middle English. Chaucer, the Parson's Tale:




        An hound, whan he comth by the roser or by othere beautees, thogh he may nat pisse, yet wole he heue vp his leg and make a contenaunce to pisse.




        By the 20th century, both words could also serve as nouns, denoting the action of leaking or pissing, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. At the same time, they acquired a periphrastic use in the phrase to take a leak:




        (Tropic of Cancer, 1934) I stood there taking a leak.



        (Heartless, 1934) There were puddles of sludge from the mud of the road, the waste water of the saloon, and any number of passing drunkards who thought to stop and take a piss on their way through.




        Why take? Basically, take in this usage emphasizes the following noun. When verbs do this, they ares called delexical or empty because the verb is less important than the following noun. To take a piss => to piss. To take a leak => to leak. It's not that anything is being literally taken, as with other meanings of to take, but rather that here the verb introduces an action. Here is how the OED explains take as a delexical verb that emphasizes carrying out the following action:




        81.a. To make, do, perform (an act, action, movement, etc.); to carry out. Often take forms with the object a phrase which is a periphrastic equivalent of the cognate verb: e.g. to take a leap is equivalent to to leap, to take a look to to look, to take one's departure to to depart, etc.




        "have, v." has virtually the same entry (22). It's hard to answer why take was the verb and not, say, have. Without direct evidence (which would be very hard to come by for common periphrastic forms), I can only guess that it's an accident of use.






        share|improve this answer













        It is because one takes an action, leak or piss denote actions, and the noun forms of these actions ended up using take instead of other available verbs.



        To "leak," meaning to "make water" or piss, was first a verb. Shakespeare, Henry IV part 1:




        Why, they will allow us ne'er a jordan, and then we
        leak in your chimney; and your chamber-lie breeds
        fleas like a loach.




        And piss, as a verb, goes back to Middle English. Chaucer, the Parson's Tale:




        An hound, whan he comth by the roser or by othere beautees, thogh he may nat pisse, yet wole he heue vp his leg and make a contenaunce to pisse.




        By the 20th century, both words could also serve as nouns, denoting the action of leaking or pissing, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. At the same time, they acquired a periphrastic use in the phrase to take a leak:




        (Tropic of Cancer, 1934) I stood there taking a leak.



        (Heartless, 1934) There were puddles of sludge from the mud of the road, the waste water of the saloon, and any number of passing drunkards who thought to stop and take a piss on their way through.




        Why take? Basically, take in this usage emphasizes the following noun. When verbs do this, they ares called delexical or empty because the verb is less important than the following noun. To take a piss => to piss. To take a leak => to leak. It's not that anything is being literally taken, as with other meanings of to take, but rather that here the verb introduces an action. Here is how the OED explains take as a delexical verb that emphasizes carrying out the following action:




        81.a. To make, do, perform (an act, action, movement, etc.); to carry out. Often take forms with the object a phrase which is a periphrastic equivalent of the cognate verb: e.g. to take a leap is equivalent to to leap, to take a look to to look, to take one's departure to to depart, etc.




        "have, v." has virtually the same entry (22). It's hard to answer why take was the verb and not, say, have. Without direct evidence (which would be very hard to come by for common periphrastic forms), I can only guess that it's an accident of use.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 8 hours ago









        TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin

        4,886926




        4,886926

























            1














            Those are Delexical Verbs.
            this should help you understand them better:



            https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/english-grammar/delexical-verbs-have-take-make-and-give






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1





              This is currently a link only answer which is frowned upon on Stack Exchange. Please expand your answer to include the relevant information from the link. (e.g. What is a "delexical verb", in what situations would you use them, and most critically, why you would choose "take" instead of "give" in the example sentences?)

              – R.M.
              4 hours ago
















            1














            Those are Delexical Verbs.
            this should help you understand them better:



            https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/english-grammar/delexical-verbs-have-take-make-and-give






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1





              This is currently a link only answer which is frowned upon on Stack Exchange. Please expand your answer to include the relevant information from the link. (e.g. What is a "delexical verb", in what situations would you use them, and most critically, why you would choose "take" instead of "give" in the example sentences?)

              – R.M.
              4 hours ago














            1












            1








            1







            Those are Delexical Verbs.
            this should help you understand them better:



            https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/english-grammar/delexical-verbs-have-take-make-and-give






            share|improve this answer













            Those are Delexical Verbs.
            this should help you understand them better:



            https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/english-grammar/delexical-verbs-have-take-make-and-give







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 8 hours ago









            Uhtred RagnarssonUhtred Ragnarsson

            47926




            47926








            • 1





              This is currently a link only answer which is frowned upon on Stack Exchange. Please expand your answer to include the relevant information from the link. (e.g. What is a "delexical verb", in what situations would you use them, and most critically, why you would choose "take" instead of "give" in the example sentences?)

              – R.M.
              4 hours ago














            • 1





              This is currently a link only answer which is frowned upon on Stack Exchange. Please expand your answer to include the relevant information from the link. (e.g. What is a "delexical verb", in what situations would you use them, and most critically, why you would choose "take" instead of "give" in the example sentences?)

              – R.M.
              4 hours ago








            1




            1





            This is currently a link only answer which is frowned upon on Stack Exchange. Please expand your answer to include the relevant information from the link. (e.g. What is a "delexical verb", in what situations would you use them, and most critically, why you would choose "take" instead of "give" in the example sentences?)

            – R.M.
            4 hours ago





            This is currently a link only answer which is frowned upon on Stack Exchange. Please expand your answer to include the relevant information from the link. (e.g. What is a "delexical verb", in what situations would you use them, and most critically, why you would choose "take" instead of "give" in the example sentences?)

            – R.M.
            4 hours ago


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f488421%2fwhy-is-it-take-a-leak%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

            Alcedinidae

            Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]