5 ms·

Just because you were able to resolve the ambiguity doesn't mean there wasn't a problem. Precision matters: Ambiguity is perhaps the leading reason that partie

Just because you were able to resolve the ambiguity doesn't mean there wasn't a problem. Precision matters: Ambiguity is perhaps the leading reason that parties to contracts find themselves embroiled in costly, dragged-out lawsuits: When a term in a contract could plausibly be interpreted in multiple ways, and there's money riding on the outcome, the lawyers for both sides will come up with all kinds of arguments why their client's interpretation should win. Here, the GGP's misuse of the language doesn't really matter. But it's still better to stick to the standard, so that when it does matter, the meaning will be clear.

xeromal 5y ago
But dude, are we signing contracts right now? lol.
- dctoedt 5y ago
  > But dude, are we signing contracts right now? lol. You play like you practice.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  It's best not to say the opposite of what was intended, contract or not.
silicon2401 5y ago
I agree with you > Substitute X for Y I would read this as saying "use X instead of Y". In contrast, I would use this wording for the opposite intention: > Substitute Y with X This discussion also adds support to the side that "substitute X for Y" is the correct terminology: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/23360/substitute-x-for-y https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/23360/substitute... > This is probably the source of the confusion you noticed: > “Substitute…for…”—first replaces second. > “Substitute…with…”—second replaces first. > The preposition controls the meaning. "Substitute X for Y" means what you think it does: the X will replace Y. > "Substitute X with Y", however, reverses the meaning: Y will replace X. > The traditional construction is like this: > The mechanic had to substitute a generic steering wheel for the original Bentley wheel. > The substitute is the thing you substitute; the original is what you substitute it for. It is perhaps easier to remember if you know the origin of the construction. The word substituo means "to place under, to substitute" in classical Latin. From statuo, "to place, to cause to stand", and sub-, "under". The prefix sub- is used in a way similar to supplant, suppose, the latter meaning "to take a theory in place of a fact" (we suppose something because we don't have the facts). > It is also possible to mention only the substitute: > The recipe said she needed "bacon". She hated bacon. She decided to substitute parma ham. > Because some people have forgotten how to use the construction, probably caused in part by contamination with replace, you will sometimes see it used in various other ways; however, because confusion is quick to ensue, style guides recommend that you use it like this. I would agree that there is debate, and that your suggestion is the standard (edited as I misread your and the original commenter's sides of the debate)
- ummonk 5y ago
  Isn’t “substitute Y with X” the same as “substitute X for Y”? Not really the opposite intention. Did you mean to say “substitute X with Y” for opposite intention?
  - silicon2401 5y ago
    I meant to say something like opposite direction but bungled it lol, wasn't sure how to describe it in the couple minutes break from working I took to comment
dymk 5y ago
I put "Standard" in quotes because there is no such thing as "Standard" English. There is English as it is used (that is to say, as many dialects as there are people who speak it). What matters is that the meaning was conveyed correctly, and it was. Your prescriptivism may be welcome when drafting contracts meant for other lawyers who speak "Legalese English", but not here.
- dctoedt 5y ago
  > contracts meant for other lawyers who speak "Legalese English" That's a misconception. Contracts are supposed to be drafted so that non-lawyers can readily understand and follow them (and so that, when necessary, ordinary-citizen jurors can understand and enforce them). It's certainly true that some lawyers like to use legalese mumbo-jumbo. Maybe they want to make themselves look important. Or justify the hours they bill. Maybe they're terrified of deviating from what's been done before. But good lawyers aren't that way.
- yesenadam 5y ago
  Maybe speak for yourself on whether meaning was conveyed correctly and whether the GP's comments were welcome? It seems a bit ironic rebuking someone loftily about their "prescriptivism" while talking like that. I found the initial use of "substitute" very jarring, started wondering how common this backwards use of "substitute" might be nowadays, and when I saw GP's remarks on it thought "Ah, it's not just me then!".
- IncRnd 5y ago
  Do you also drive the store to the car? Hey, it's not a contract, so why not? It's not a question of "Legalese English". People should used words in the proper order to convey an idea, instead of using them in a backwards or random order.

xeromal 5y ago

But dude, are we signing contracts right now? lol.

dctoedt 5y ago
> But dude, are we signing contracts right now? lol. You play like you practice.
IncRnd 5y ago
It's best not to say the opposite of what was intended, contract or not.

silicon2401 5y ago

I agree with you > Substitute X for Y I would read this as saying "use X instead of Y". In contrast, I would use this wording for the opposite intention: > Substitute Y with X This discussion also adds support to the side that "substitute X for Y" is the correct terminology: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/23360/substitute-x-for-y https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/23360/substitute... > This is probably the source of the confusion you noticed: > “Substitute…for…”—first replaces second. > “Substitute…with…”—second replaces first. > The preposition controls the meaning. "Substitute X for Y" means what you think it does: the X will replace Y. > "Substitute X with Y", however, reverses the meaning: Y will replace X. > The traditional construction is like this: > The mechanic had to substitute a generic steering wheel for the original Bentley wheel. > The substitute is the thing you substitute; the original is what you substitute it for. It is perhaps easier to remember if you know the origin of the construction. The word substituo means "to place under, to substitute" in classical Latin. From statuo, "to place, to cause to stand", and sub-, "under". The prefix sub- is used in a way similar to supplant, suppose, the latter meaning "to take a theory in place of a fact" (we suppose something because we don't have the facts). > It is also possible to mention only the substitute: > The recipe said she needed "bacon". She hated bacon. She decided to substitute parma ham. > Because some people have forgotten how to use the construction, probably caused in part by contamination with replace, you will sometimes see it used in various other ways; however, because confusion is quick to ensue, style guides recommend that you use it like this. I would agree that there is debate, and that your suggestion is the standard (edited as I misread your and the original commenter's sides of the debate)

ummonk 5y ago
Isn’t “substitute Y with X” the same as “substitute X for Y”? Not really the opposite intention. Did you mean to say “substitute X with Y” for opposite intention?
- silicon2401 5y ago
  I meant to say something like opposite direction but bungled it lol, wasn't sure how to describe it in the couple minutes break from working I took to comment

dymk 5y ago

I put "Standard" in quotes because there is no such thing as "Standard" English. There is English as it is used (that is to say, as many dialects as there are people who speak it). What matters is that the meaning was conveyed correctly, and it was. Your prescriptivism may be welcome when drafting contracts meant for other lawyers who speak "Legalese English", but not here.

dctoedt 5y ago
> contracts meant for other lawyers who speak "Legalese English" That's a misconception. Contracts are supposed to be drafted so that non-lawyers can readily understand and follow them (and so that, when necessary, ordinary-citizen jurors can understand and enforce them). It's certainly true that some lawyers like to use legalese mumbo-jumbo. Maybe they want to make themselves look important. Or justify the hours they bill. Maybe they're terrified of deviating from what's been done before. But good lawyers aren't that way.
yesenadam 5y ago
Maybe speak for yourself on whether meaning was conveyed correctly and whether the GP's comments were welcome? It seems a bit ironic rebuking someone loftily about their "prescriptivism" while talking like that. I found the initial use of "substitute" very jarring, started wondering how common this backwards use of "substitute" might be nowadays, and when I saw GP's remarks on it thought "Ah, it's not just me then!".
IncRnd 5y ago
Do you also drive the store to the car? Hey, it's not a contract, so why not? It's not a question of "Legalese English". People should used words in the proper order to convey an idea, instead of using them in a backwards or random order.