4 ms·
> substitute TV with books [etc.] Not to be snarky, but it's "replace TV with books"; to use substitute, it'd be "substitute books for TV." (Yeah, I know lang
by dctoedt 8y ago
> substitute TV with books [etc.]
Not to be snarky, but it's "replace TV with books"; to use substitute, it'd be "substitute books for TV."
(Yeah, I know language evolves, but Humpty Dumpty had his head, such as it was, in a warm dark place — '"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."' [0])
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty#In_Through_the_Looking-Glass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty#In_Through_the_L...
- dctoedt 8y agoOn further thought: "Substitute X with Y" should be accepted as OK, because: 1) If a new use of language is clear, that's what really matters. And if the new use makes it easier for writers / speakers to use the language with confidence — especially when it's not their first language — then so much the better. 2) To paraphrase a well-known saying: Language was made for man, not man for language.
- lambdadmitry 8y agoCheers! I'll keep that in mind. As a non-native speaker I sometimes miss the finer quirks of English, especially when it's subtly different from my mother tongue.