"confuses X for Y"

[Arnold M. Zwicky]

On Aug 26, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Larry Horn wrote:

> This is another monkey wrench to throw into both the current debate
> on online blends vs. pattern extension as language change and the
> earlier threads on "substitute" and "replace".  From the cover story
> of today's New York Times Book Review...
>
> ... I don't recall ever seeing "confuses X for Y" (as opposed to
> "confuses X with Y" or "takes X for Y"), but on closer examination it
> seems too well-established to constitute what Arnold refers to as a
> type-2 combo or blend proper.

i've seen this before, and somewhere i have a file (of one sort or
another) of examples, but i have no idea where it is.  in any case, i
took it to be an extension of the pattern
   mistake X1 for X2
to the verb "confuse", which overlaps semantically with "mistake".
that would put this case in the same ballpark as the first stage of
the "substitute" story, in which "substitute" appears in the pattern
   replace OLD by/with NEW
in the place of the semantically related "replace".

in the story that david denison tells about the second stage, there
is blending, of the two patterns
   substitute NEW for OLD [original "substitute"]
and
   substitute OLD by/with NEW [encroached "substitute"]
to give
   substitute OLD for NEW [reversed "substitute"].
if this story is right, the blend must have spread pretty fast, since
reversed "substitute" is fairly common in the u.k. and now spreading
in the u.s.]

if the spreading-blend story is plausible here, then it can't be
immediately excluded in the "confuse" case, which could in principle
have started with a blend of
   confuse X1 with/and X2
and
   mistake X1 for X2
that spread rapidly.

but i need to think more about this case.

arnold

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org