is "trade" the new "substitute"?

Thu Mar 27 17:48:47 UTC 2014

I indeed was not aware that some people have the requirement for "trade"
that Joel described, where the placement of the items tells us who had what
to begin with, and I think that Dan has a good point about context --
Chinese is the same way in that the verbs for "borrow" and "lend" are the
same (you can couple this with a verb for "give" or "receive" to make it
clear without context), but the context normally is relied on to make it
clear.  English once had more inflection than it does now, and maybe what
is happening to verbs like "trade" and "substitute" indicates a general
movement toward a more high-context language.

I had a similar (though even more shocking) experience five years ago
sitting on Rodney Huddleston's patio overlooking the sea.  I uttered
something like "I'll bring it to her", and Rodney interjected that he
couldn't say that -- that he would have to use "take".  We discussed this
for a bit, noting that his use might have been explicitly taught, whereas
mine wasn't (I didn't pay attention to grammar classes in grade school
(thank God)), and that context played a role in my usage.  Rodney didn't
look on my usage as illegitimate in any way, just that he and I have
slightly different dialects (it sounds funny to say that, given that his is
BrE and mine is AmE, but the similarities outweigh the differences by far),
so what I uttered is ungrammatical in his dialect but perfectly OK in mine.
 I also noted at the time that it was significant that up until that moment
I was even unaware that there was any "problem" with using that word in
that way.

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Dan Goncharoff <thegonch at gmail.com> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Dan Goncharoff <thegonch at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: is "trade" the new "substitute"?
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I am reminded of German, in which the verbs to borrow and to loan are the
> same. Context makes it clear what you mean.
>
> In most cases, context makes it clear which player is going to which team,
> or which ingredient is replaced by which ingredient.
>
> Out of context, well, who knows??
>
> DanG
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
>
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> > Subject:      Re: is "trade" the new "substitute"?
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > At 3/26/2014 08:03 PM, Laurence Horn wrote:
> > >On Mar 26, 2014, at 7:22 PM, Randy Alexander wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm not sure how these two could be different:
> > > >
> > > > a. I'll trade you X for Y.
> > > > b. I'll trade you Y for X.
> > > >
> > > > Or even:
> > > >
> > > > a. I'll trade you this for that.
> > > > b. I'll trade you that for this.
> > > >
> > > > In either case X and Y switched places.
> >
> > I think Randy missed that for Larry (and me) who
> > has which must also be considered.  For us, I
> > have the item after "you", you have the item after "for".
> >
> > On the other hand, in context, when two parties
> > are conversing, they probably already know who
> > has what and will not be confused by any switching of X and Y.
> >
> > Joel
> >
> >
> > >Let's say I'm the general manager of the Angels,
> > >whose star player is Mike Trout, and I call you,
> > >the general manager of the Detroit Tigers, whose
> > >star player is Miguel Cabrera.  In my dialect, I
> > >can say into the phone "I'll trade you Trout for
> > >Cabrera" but not "I'll trade you Cabrera for
> > >Trout".  Or, if you're not into baseball, let's
> > >say I have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in
> > >my lunchbox and you take a prosciutto and
> > >provolone sandwich out of yours.  I can offer to
> > >trade my PB&J for your prosicutto and
> > >provolone.  I can't, in my dialect, offer to
> > >trade your prosciutto and provolone for my
> > >PB&J.  The innovating speakers can do it either way, I'm told.
> > >
> > >In your example, for me "I'll trade you my X for
> > >your Y" (or "this for that") is a possible
> > >offer, but not vice versa.  So maybe you're a
> > >speaker of what I'm calling the innovative
> > >dialect.  Similarly I can say (if I'm the
> > >Angels' GM) "I'll trade (you) Trout" but not
> > >"I'll trade (you) Cabrera"; I can only say "I'll
> > >trade for Cabrera".  Maybe I'm an old fogey on this.
> > >
> > >LH
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Mar 25, 2014 7:49 PM, "Laurence Horn" <laurence.horn at yale.edu>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > > >> -----------------------
> > > >> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > > >> Poster:       Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
> > > >> Subject:      is "trade" the new "substitute"?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>
> > > >> Has anyone encountered reversed "trade x for y" being used in a
> > context in
> > > >> which it's y that's acquired and x that's
> > > given up?  We've discussed (every
> > > >> few months) the inverse "substitute", as in
> > > >>
> > > >> Traditional moussaka is done with eggplant. What we've done is
> > substitute
> > > >> eggplant for
> > > >> potato.
> > > >> --from Iron Chef America potato recipe show, via Victor Steinbok on
> > this
> > > >> listserv 11.8.11
> > > >>
> > > >> So the reversed or inverse "trade" would be an example like:
> > > >>
> > > >> I'll trade you A for B
> > > >>
> > > >> in which the speaker is proposing to relinquish B in exchange for
> > > >> obtaining A, rather than the other way around.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm told this is now common enough that some young whippersnappers
> > > >> (trading e.g. video games or baseball cards or whatever) now no
> > longer use
> > > >> the verb "trade" because nobody knows what's being proposed, and
> > instead
> > > >> just goes with "I'll give you A for B", whose meaning I assume
> remains
> > > >> unchanged.  Anyone familiar with this innovative use of "trade"?
> > > >>
> > > >> LH
> > > >>
> > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > >
> > >------------------------------------------------------------
> > >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

--
Randy Alexander
Manchu studies: http://www.sinoglot.com/manchu
Language in China (group blog): http://www.sinoglot.com/blog
Music: http://www.metafilter.com/activity/56219/posts/music/

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