Talk:substitute

Verb usage?

Can someone please specify the correct usage of the word "substitute" (verb)?

For example, "You can substitute X for Y."?

Dictionary definitions that I have seen do not make it obvious, and I think I've heard its use in casual conversation both ways. I'm pretty sure that correct usage in the above example has the following sense: "You can use X instead of Y.", but can anyone provide a authoritative source that is explicit about this?

TIA

You are correct, "to substitute X for Y" means that X is the new, Y is the old. A synonym would be "to replace Y with X". The phrase "substitute X for Y" cannot have the opposite meaning, and I think the principle factor is the word "for". If you understand computer logic, you could rephrase it this way, where "for" = "if exists": if exists Y, substitute X. The preposition "for" does not admit the inverse sense, unlike Spanish and other Romance languages. —Stephen 06:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, both meanings are used: "substitute Y with X". When "with X" is omitted the result is ambiguous, and the possible effects can be horrendous to contemplate. I've added a cautionary note. --Thnidu (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

WT:FEED

The following discussion has been moved from the page WT:FEED.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

substitute

"I had to substitute old parts with the new ones" is horrible English, and you do your readers a disservice by presenting it as correct. The statement in the Usage notes that the reader or hearer cannot tell what is meant by "Substitute butter" or "Substitute olive oil" is also incorrect. Perhaps this is true for the reader who does not understand the meaning of the word "substitute", but for anyone who does understand, the meaning is clear. 109.153.232.33 04:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you about the modern trend to use substitute with instead of replace with, (and the even worse use of "by") but the OED says: "This use was often criticized in the early 20th cent., and replace preferred; N.E.D. (1914) comments: ‘Now regarded as incorrect.’ However this use of substitute (particularly in the passive voice) remains common." so, as a descriptive dictionary, we have to accept that people "misuse" the construction and that this misuse has become "normal". I'd be surprised if many "good" writers use the "horrible" construction. Because of this "misuse", many people no longer understand the correct use of the example in the usage note. Perhaps we could just note that the construction with "with" was formerly proscribed? Dbfirs 11:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Linguists as scientists describe language, they don't dictate it. You wouldn't get physicists commenting on whether particles spin the right or the wrong way. It would be ridiculous. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Historians don't hide history just because they don't like it. If your physicist discovered that a particle used to spin the other way, then that would certainly be worth recording. Dbfirs 19:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Brasilian Portuguese Speaker

I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A COMMENTARY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO A BRAZILIAN WHEN HE HAS TO DEAL WITH THE VERB TO SUBSTITUTE Zucar Loap (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

IN PORTUGUESE THE PHRASE "THE PROGRESS SUBSTITUTED THE CAR FOR THE DILIGENCE" ALTHOUGH IS CORRECT IN ENGLISH IT IS DIFFICULT TO BE UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE PREPOSITION FOR IS TAKEN BY THE PREPOSITION "PELA" OR "PARA" AND BOTH DO NOT MAKE SENSE IN THE TRANSLATION. BRAZILIANS UNDERSTAND THAT "THE DILIGENCE WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR THE CAR" . SEE AND COMPARE HOW THE PHRASE HAS TO BE WRITTEN IN PORTUGUESE " O PROGRESSO SUBSTITUIU A DILIGENCIA PELO CARRO " ONE CAN SEE THAT THE WORDS "CAR" AND "DILIGENCE" CHANGE PLACES.

Horrible English Usage

The following two uses described in the main article as correct are simply awful and are traveling about infecting many recipes and much sports commentary. My belief is that one substitutes one new thing or person FOR the original thing or person, period.

"--(transitive, formerly proscribed, in the phrase "substitute X with/by Y") To use Y in place of X; to replace X with Y. I had to substitute old parts with the new ones." FORMERLY PROSCRIBED-- because it's terrible and confusing!

"--(transitive, sports) To remove (a player) from the field of play and bring on another in his place. He was playing poorly and was substituted after twenty minutes. THIS IS CLEARLY CONFUSING. "A player is substituted" could mean she goes into or out of the game, either replacing or being replaced. The standard English use would be "She was playing poorly, so the coach substituted another player for her. (Coach called her off the field and substituted another player for her.)

The citation to the COED is unhelpful. Almost every example is inapposite. "Self-service is no substitute for service." for example. Perfectly fine band not what we're discussing here. Later in the COED note, there is complete confusion about who or what goes in or out. It may be true that the "substituted with" or "substituted by" forms are common now in sports commentary. I do not use sports commentators as English language guides, however.

Sometimes English just is confusing and uninituitive. Why do we have two words "flammable" and "inflammable" that sound like they should be opposites? That's just how it came out, historically. So we must document actual real usage, even if you personally dislike it. We are descriptive, not proscriptive. Equinox ◑ 07:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)