You can't "give a hug"

• people often say "i'll give you a hug".
• this is a preposterous idea.
• to give something, you must first have whatever thing it is that you wish to give.
• for example i can't give you a quarter if i don't have one in my possession.
• to give a hug you would need to be in possession a hug. that is were the problem begins.
  

a hug is generally understood as two people's mutual embrace. Until the people connect, the hug doesn't exist. it is created by those two people, in that moment, and disappears into the annals of hug history when the end they complete their contact. it would be more conceptually accurate to say let's create a hug. this phrasing is not just a minor semantic improvement, it gets down to very meaning of what a hug is. if you believe that a hug is a mutually created and reinforces a relationship, than it is important to talk about it in a way that underscores that mutuality.

i can think of a few situations where the above may not apply. i have been discussing the two person hug where each person is not hugging anyone else at the time of the statement. hugs can presumably involve several people. if two people are hugging and wish to include another person they also shouldn't say can we give you a hug, for though they are involved in a hug, they can't give it away without it disappearing. earlier i said that you can offer to create a hug with someone else. in the case of a set or group of people hugging, the hug has been created, adding another person modifies the hug. it would probably create an awkward situation if you invited someone to modify your hug. perhaps better would be to offer to include someone.

any other situations to address?
is this all just ridiculous?
any one share this annoyance?