"substitute with" again

[Wilson Gray]

No-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o!!!! Surely, you jest! But no. No one with a heart would
kid about anything as hurtful as that. Would he/she/they? ;-)

Well, once again, it appears that I'm going to have to get out more.

-Wilson

On 3/7/06, Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at YAHOO.COM>
> Subject:      Re: "substitute with" again
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sorry to break the news, but I hear "irregardless" more often than
> "regardless."
>
>   One of my good friends holds an important position in the state
> judiciary and
>   uses "irregardless" exclusively.
>
>   Whether he *writes* it, I don't know.
>
>   JL
> Wilson Gray <hwgray at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>   ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender: American Dialect Society
> Poster: Wilson Gray
> Subject: Re: "substitute with" again
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Maybe it'll just die out all by itself, as "irregardless" and "forMIDable"
> appear to have done, knock wood.
>
> Does anyone know off the top of his/her/their head how you say,
> "replace X with Y" / "substitute X for Y" in, e.g. German? I have a vague
> inkling in the back of my thinking cap that there's some common foreign
> language that has some inside-out way of saying that that may have
> influenced the English of the pswaydo-learned.
>
> -Wilson
>
> On 3/7/06, Laurence Horn wrote:
> >
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender: American Dialect Society
> > Poster: Laurence Horn
> > Subject: "substitute with" again
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> ------
> >
> > It still sounds very odd to me, but I'm beginning to accept that it
> > really is creeping into standard usage, at least for some. I was
> > looking at an impressive retrospective of Hokusai, the great 19th
> > century Japanese artist, at the Smithsonian Asian museum in D.C. this
> > weekend, where one of the many descriptive plaques read in part as
> > follows:
> >
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > The image is based on a story in which Nichiren encounters a
> > beautiful woman who reveals her true form as that of a seven-headed
> > serpent, but in this painting Hokusai has substituted the serpent
> > with the more familiar dragon.
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >
> > --for me, this would have had to be either "replaced the serpent with
> > the more familiar dragon" or "substituted the more familiar dragon
> > for the serpent". The curatorial prose on these plaques was
> > otherwise as stylistically dignified as you'd expect--no contractions
> > or any trace of colloquialisms. We're definitely tracking an ongoing
> > linguistic change in formal English... (Wilson, I weep with thee.)
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Mail
> Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

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