Apples or pears?

1 2

Share on Facebook

MrPedantic

#74135 Tue, 15 Feb 05 02:43 PM

It's ok, Julielai – the rest of us won't look.

It'll be between you and Casi...

Smile [:)]

MrP

MrPedantic

Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004

Veteran Member (12,055)

...opella forensis / adducit febris...

julielai

#74143 Tue, 15 Feb 05 03:01 PM

Gosh, not only do I give the wrong answer, I also have to justify it? Do I get a consolation prize for this?

All right, if nothing else, to satisfy your curiosity.

When somebody says:
X is a substitute for Y. (I end up with X, because it's the substitute -- substitute for Y)

But substitute X for Y? Well, "for Y" can be construed as the ultimate thing you're after, grammatically speaking.

Alright, send my consolation prize to my Paypal account. Smile [:)]

julielai

Joined on Sun, Oct 24 2004

Planet earth

Senior Member (3,570)

Just another blogger (http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/julie-lai)

Website motto in Latin ???

julielai

#74264 Wed, 16 Feb 05 05:40 AM

No response? It's Chinese New Year, and I have yet to receive a red packet. Smile [:)]

BTW, do you mind telling me what the purpose of the experiment is? Not that you have to tell us

julielai

MrPedantic

#74288 Wed, 16 Feb 05 07:47 AM

do you mind telling me what the purpose of the experiment is?

I don't know, Julielai, but I woke up this morning with fresh stitches and no memory of the preceding 12 hours.

Is this legal?

MrP

MrPedantic

Casi

#74332 Wed, 16 Feb 05 11:04 AM

Alright, send my consolation prize to my Paypal account.

OK. Will do!

Thanks, Julie. Your answer is exactly what I was looking for. And don't feel left out, will ya? Many speakers, both native and non-native, get the same reading, if not both readings. I'm one.

I'm investigating semantic analogy, or how (native) speakers add new meaning to a word based on similarities with other words. For example, "substitute" is to "exchange", as "exchange" is to "switch". What speakers do, I suspect, is merge the two, thereby altering the deictic relations. In other words, the noun that's closer to the verb becomes the thing owned, and the noun further away from the verb becomes the thing gained:

A. We want to substitute apples (We have "apples". It's closer to the verb)
B. We want to substitute apples (We don't have "apples"; they are the sub)

"substitute" has two meanings, so don't feel left out. A. is new, and it's due to semantic analogy, or how speakers add new meaning to words. Count youself as a maverick, Julie. You're ahead of the times.

I thank you for your cando(u)r. You've been a great help.

All the best,

Casi

Joined on Sat, Sep 25 2004

Regular Member (547)

Analogies, Nouns, Verbs

julielai

#74381 Wed, 16 Feb 05 02:37 PM

My cyber red packet for the new year!

If you're investigating semantic analogy, I suggest you look at my other thread on "approach to". I've been trying to tell my friend it's okay to put a gerund (or is it verbal, as Mr. P called it?) after "approach to". My friend insisted that "X is the wrong approach to learn English" is better, because "X is the wrong way to learn English" is correct. And wherever "way" is acceptable, "approach" should be as well.

This little experiment reminds us all how the nature and meaning of words often overrides possible similarities in grammatical structures. (as in the example of my friend) So, I should thank YOU, since, as the Chinese say, "you have put money (ie. knowledge/power) in my pocket", no wordplay intended!

Poor Mr. P. must have had an unfortunate encounter with Men in Black, except these MIB forgot their neuralizers, so they operated on him. Smile [:)]

julielai

Analogies, Gerunds, Learn English

CalifJim

#74990 Sat, 19 Feb 05 03:38 AM

So, Casi, you're saying it's either of these?

We want to substitute (= put) apples ['in place of' / 'so as to replace'] (these) pears (already present here).
We want to substitute (= remove) (these) apples (already present here) 'in order to have instead' pears.

Interesting.
I suppose "replace ... with" works in a similar way?

Any others besides "substitute", "switch", "exchange", and possibly "replace"?

Seems that "confuse ... with" might create a similar effect somehow. Hmmm.

CJ

CalifJim

Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004

California

Veteran Member (16,995)

"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche

Casi

#75277 Sun, 20 Feb 05 02:29 PM

CJ wrote:
Seems that "confuse ... with" might create a similar effect somehow. Hmmm.

Synonymy is just a symptom. The true culprit is deixis, and it can indeed be pretty confusing, especially across languages. Take Navajo for example, it has a fourth person: (1st) I, (2nd)you, (3rd) s/he, and (4th) the person who is not present during the conversation.

If you're interested in finding out more about deictic relations, and how they contribute to language, here's a link to get your started:

http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsDeixis.htm

Casi