Substitute/replace (Was: misnomer 'misconception')

[Mark A. Mandel]

(I was trying to compose this message yesterday or last night, but something
electronic or programmatic misfired and the whole thing got lost, to my
great irritation.)


>>>>>
        [Jonathan Lightner:]
Note too that "substitute for" is now used generally for "replace with," as
in "You can substitute the fries for a salad," meaning just the opposite of
what you'd exspect.

        [Fritz Juengling:]
OK, from this statement, I think I am going to get fries, not a salad.
So, what do I get?

        [Jonathan:]
Fritz, you speak the tired language of yesterday. Nowadays you'd get the
salad.  See, "substitute" means "replace."  "Can I substitute the fries?"
"Of course. Would you care for a salad?  Or baked sweet potato?"

In the words of Dave Barry, "I am not making this up."

        [Beverly Flanigan:]
I get this usage now too, with "substitute with" as a variant.  I used to
think it was a NNS "error," and I'd patiently explain the difference.  Now
I get it from American undergrads too, so I've given up.

        [Arnold Zwicky, with the erudition and style we have
         come to expect from him:]
converses are the very devil, as we all know, and here the problem is
especially acute, since the substitution/replacement event establishes
a kind of equivalence relationship between X and Y, with the different
formulations differing only in whether the event is described from the
point of view of X or Y (and in whether P is mentioned).

in any case, the use of "substitute" for "replace" is venerable; see
MWDEU on "substitute", citing the OED (examples back to the 17th
century), Fowler's rage over the usage, complaints from other
usageists, a pile of examples (including one from Robert A. Hall, Jr.
in American Speech (1951)), and the practice of M-W dictionaries since
Webster's Second (1934) to treat it as standard.

but, but...  the usage MWDEU is talking about has
   "substitute for" [older sense]
   "substitute with/by" 'replace with/by'
so that, as MWDEU notes, the different meanings of "substitute" are
distinguished by the prepositions they occur with.

this is no longer true, given occurrences of "substitute with/by"
'replace with/by'.
 <<<<<

        [Finally, Mark Mandel gets around to his own
         two cents' worth:]
Most important is whether the meaning is communicated, and this change can
drastically fail that criterion when no preposition is used. To quote
myself:

Next we'll drop in on a woman I know
Whose data was wrecked, a day's work at one blow.
A technical writer bears part of the blame
Who thought "substitute" and "replace" mean the same.

  Twelve thousand, half million, million and more,
  Misplaced apostrophe's, commas, galore,
  Spelling misteaks run-on sentences too --
  Let's hope it won't happen to me or to you.

    ("Editors' Waltz",
     http://www.speakeasy.org/~mamandel/filks/EditorsWaltz.html)

-- Mark A. Mandel
[This text prepared with Dragon NaturallySpeaking.]