I'll make you a trade, but am I saying this backward?
January 11, 2010 8:10 PM Subscribe
GrammarFilter: Is the phrase "I will trade you.." often misused, or is it a perfectly valid usage that drives me crazy?
I've occasionally heard people use the construct "I will trade you X for my Y." This makes my head hurt. To me, I've always understood it to mean "I will trade, to you, my X for your Y." Putting the article you own as the second part in the phrase makes no sense to me, especially when people omit ownership. Is my interpretation correct, or is this just a pet peeve that has no basis in actual grammatical rules?
I've occasionally heard people use the construct "I will trade you X for my Y." This makes my head hurt. To me, I've always understood it to mean "I will trade, to you, my X for your Y." Putting the article you own as the second part in the phrase makes no sense to me, especially when people omit ownership. Is my interpretation correct, or is this just a pet peeve that has no basis in actual grammatical rules?
well, it seems like a standard use of the indirect object pronoun (where "you" means "to you") which is totally legal in English. that's why the old joke about the Dalai Lama ordering a pizza ("make me one with everything") is funny.
well, sort of funny.
if you like that sort of thing.
posted by toodleydoodley at 8:20 PM on January 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
well, sort of funny.
if you like that sort of thing.
posted by toodleydoodley at 8:20 PM on January 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm a little unsure of which aspect of that phrase you're criticizing, but I think I disagree your stance on this. And I'm not saying this based on "There are no rules! There's no right and wrong!" (I'm sure some people will be coming along soon to make those points.)
When I took an intro Italian language course in college, they gave us a primer on some English grammar that's unfortunately not very well taught in school. See, in English, there's a convention where we say something like this:
"Throw the ball to me." [verb, noun, preposition, object]
But we can also rearrange the words and say:
"Throw me the ball." [verb, no preposition, object, noun]
Every competent native English speaker instinctively knows that those sentences are fine. And such speakers also know that this would be utterly incorrect:
"Throw to me the ball."
That is not an acceptable English sentence. It's a free country, so you can say it if you want, but it's going to sound wrong to people because of the preposition "to." If you want the word "to," then "to me" should come after "the ball." If you want "me" before "the ball," there shouldn't be any "to."
Similarly, you could say: "Tell the story to him." Or you could say: "Tell him the story." Both are perfectly correct. What grates on the ears is: "Tell to him the story." That's the way someone might talk if they were learning English as a second language; native speakers don't talk like that.
I infer from these examples that, in English, we omit the preposition ("to," "for," "with," etc.) when the indirect object (e.g. "me") goes before the direct object (e.g. "the ball"). That's all I know -- maybe someone else can give a better grammatical or linguistic explanation of why we do this.
posted by Jaltcoh at 8:33 PM on January 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
When I took an intro Italian language course in college, they gave us a primer on some English grammar that's unfortunately not very well taught in school. See, in English, there's a convention where we say something like this:
"Throw the ball to me." [verb, noun, preposition, object]
But we can also rearrange the words and say:
"Throw me the ball." [verb, no preposition, object, noun]
Every competent native English speaker instinctively knows that those sentences are fine. And such speakers also know that this would be utterly incorrect:
"Throw to me the ball."
That is not an acceptable English sentence. It's a free country, so you can say it if you want, but it's going to sound wrong to people because of the preposition "to." If you want the word "to," then "to me" should come after "the ball." If you want "me" before "the ball," there shouldn't be any "to."
Similarly, you could say: "Tell the story to him." Or you could say: "Tell him the story." Both are perfectly correct. What grates on the ears is: "Tell to him the story." That's the way someone might talk if they were learning English as a second language; native speakers don't talk like that.
I infer from these examples that, in English, we omit the preposition ("to," "for," "with," etc.) when the indirect object (e.g. "me") goes before the direct object (e.g. "the ball"). That's all I know -- maybe someone else can give a better grammatical or linguistic explanation of why we do this.
posted by Jaltcoh at 8:33 PM on January 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
It's worth noting that many, if not most, linguists now would say that there really aren't any 'grammatical rules' to which everyone should or even could be held. These linguists call themselves descriptivists (as distinguished from prescriptivists), seeing their job as describing how language works rather than prescribing how other people should use it.
Language does tend to change based on however people choose to use it. I think it's just a general fact of life that you have to accept the odd and sometimes personally annoying usages people deploy in the interest of being practical about it. Personally, I have plenty of annoyances with the way people language - for example the word "swipe" - but I'm trying to learn not to let them bother me.
posted by koeselitz at 8:35 PM on January 11, 2010
Language does tend to change based on however people choose to use it. I think it's just a general fact of life that you have to accept the odd and sometimes personally annoying usages people deploy in the interest of being practical about it. Personally, I have plenty of annoyances with the way people language - for example the word "swipe" - but I'm trying to learn not to let them bother me.
posted by koeselitz at 8:35 PM on January 11, 2010
I have never heard anyone, ever, say "I'll trade, to you, my X for your Y." If someone said that to me, I would think they were not a native speaker of English.
I think the more perscriptive phrase would be "I'll trade my X for your Y" (no "to you" or "you" needed because it's implied in the "your Y").
But descriptively "I'll trade you my X for your Y" (or your X for my Y) is perfectly acceptable.
It's the same as "I'll bet you $5 they lose" I'm not really betting "you" but the sentence is perfectly acceptable.
"make me one with everything" - that's funny!
posted by patheral at 8:41 PM on January 11, 2010
I think the more perscriptive phrase would be "I'll trade my X for your Y" (no "to you" or "you" needed because it's implied in the "your Y").
But descriptively "I'll trade you my X for your Y" (or your X for my Y) is perfectly acceptable.
It's the same as "I'll bet you $5 they lose" I'm not really betting "you" but the sentence is perfectly acceptable.
"make me one with everything" - that's funny!
posted by patheral at 8:41 PM on January 11, 2010
If you are going to add the word in there, I would use "with" rather than "to". I trade with you not to you. But, I think it is correct to say "I'll trade you...."
But, this is coming from a former floor trader who has big problems with real estate agents who say "offer" when they mean "bid". The seller makes an offer and the buyer makes a bid. The buyer does not make an offer.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 8:56 PM on January 11, 2010
But, this is coming from a former floor trader who has big problems with real estate agents who say "offer" when they mean "bid". The seller makes an offer and the buyer makes a bid. The buyer does not make an offer.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 8:56 PM on January 11, 2010
"I'll trade you X for Y" is a completely normal English sentence - except that it's odd to trade letters of the alphabet. "Trade" is a verb like "give" or "lend" that can take a direct object and an indirect object. "You" is the indirect object, like "him" in "I lent him a book." and X is the direct object. Y is the object of the preposition "for." The construction is the same as "I paid him $20 for it." Paying like trading (and giving and lending) takes two objects and is frequently explained as being done for something. There's nothing weird here.
posted by nangar at 9:02 PM on January 11, 2010
posted by nangar at 9:02 PM on January 11, 2010
Pet peeve.
1- "I will trade you my bike for your coonskin hat."
2- "I will trade to you my bike for your coonskin hat."
1- "I will sell you my bike for $100."
2- "I will sell to you my bike for $100."
I have never heard the #2 usage, ever, by a native English speaker.
posted by The Deej at 9:36 PM on January 11, 2010
1- "I will trade you my bike for your coonskin hat."
2- "I will trade to you my bike for your coonskin hat."
1- "I will sell you my bike for $100."
2- "I will sell to you my bike for $100."
I have never heard the #2 usage, ever, by a native English speaker.
posted by The Deej at 9:36 PM on January 11, 2010
Actually, I misread your question. I think pompomtom's answer is the best. In offering to trade something, I'd usually put what I have first and then what I want to trade it for, but there's no reason not to reverse it.
posted by nangar at 9:50 PM on January 11, 2010
posted by nangar at 9:50 PM on January 11, 2010
OK. I think all of us misunderstood your question except pompomtom and maybe koeselitz. It's not how I would say it, but it's not ungrammatical exactly, and it still makes sense.
posted by nangar at 10:03 PM on January 11, 2010
posted by nangar at 10:03 PM on January 11, 2010
My son got the board game Settlers of Catan for Christmas, and we've had several family competitions with it since. Most of the game is trading resources with other players ("I'll trade you two grains for an ore," etc.). I seem, my kids and husband say, ALWAYS to say it backwards. I haven't analyzed which direction I intuitively go (I still don't know the "right" way)--but I sympathize with the confusion! I think that if you say "I'll trade you x for y," omitting ownership information, the ownership of x and y is ambiguous. Perhaps the "for y" suggests that y is what you're getting, not giving; but grammatically I think it could go either way.
posted by torticat at 10:43 PM on January 11, 2010
posted by torticat at 10:43 PM on January 11, 2010
Best answer: Isn't the poster complaining about :
I'll trade you a brick for my piece of cake
meaning "give me a brick and i will give you my cake in return".
Or worse:
I'll trade you a brick for a piece of cake
where the speaker owns the cake, not the brick.
I wouldn't call this a grammatical mistake, necessarily, but in the versions of English I'm familiar with, the direct object of "trade" is ALWAYS the thing which the subject ("I") is offering, never the thing they will accept. pompomtom and torticats' answers are sort of logical, but wrong, at least as far as my intuitions about conventional usage go. I certainly wouldn't expect to read it in standard English or to hear it from any of the people I usually talk to.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:18 PM on January 11, 2010
I'll trade you a brick for my piece of cake
meaning "give me a brick and i will give you my cake in return".
Or worse:
I'll trade you a brick for a piece of cake
where the speaker owns the cake, not the brick.
I wouldn't call this a grammatical mistake, necessarily, but in the versions of English I'm familiar with, the direct object of "trade" is ALWAYS the thing which the subject ("I") is offering, never the thing they will accept. pompomtom and torticats' answers are sort of logical, but wrong, at least as far as my intuitions about conventional usage go. I certainly wouldn't expect to read it in standard English or to hear it from any of the people I usually talk to.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:18 PM on January 11, 2010
On the other hand, this strikes me as ok:
I will trade a brick for a piece of cake
although shorn of context I would assume you were discussing your views on the fungibility of cakes and bricks.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:22 PM on January 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
I will trade a brick for a piece of cake
although shorn of context I would assume you were discussing your views on the fungibility of cakes and bricks.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:22 PM on January 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm with i_am_joe's_spleen's first comment. I've never heard anyone use the usage you're complaining about, and since the standard usage seems to be "I'll trade you [my thing] for [your thing]" I think I'd misunderstand if someone said "I'll trade you [your thing] for [my thing]". Having said that, I don't think it's a matter of grammatical rules so much as the specific case of the verb "to trade". If the speaker makes the meaning clear by identifying the ownership of the objects sufficiently well, I wouldn't tackle them to the ground and force them to write the correct version out a hundred times or anything.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 4:03 AM on January 12, 2010
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 4:03 AM on January 12, 2010
Best answer: This is not a matter of grammar but of clear communication. I'm not actually sure I believe that you've heard more than one person say "I will trade you X for my Y," but if someone actually said that, I would assume English is not their native language or they had a momentary mental glitch that made their sentence come out wrong (happens to all of us from time to time).
posted by languagehat at 6:17 AM on January 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by languagehat at 6:17 AM on January 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
I've heard that seemingly backwards construct on occasion as well. ("I will trade you [your thing] for [my thing]".) I don't know if it's technically correct or not, but it drives me nuts when I hear it, so you're not alone in that. I would imagine that "I will trade you" implies "I will trade to you", in the same sense that "I will give you" implies "I will give to you". It seems to me that "my thing" should come first in the sentence - it is what is being given or traded.
posted by pemberkins at 6:37 AM on January 12, 2010
posted by pemberkins at 6:37 AM on January 12, 2010
I have in fact heard native English speakers include the preposition when the indirect object precedes the direct object. They seem to do it when the direct object is long and complicated and they want to make sure the indirect object is clear early in the sentence. But it does sound weird, even then.
There's an example in a Deep Space Nine episode where Sisko is being all flirty-chef with Kasidy and he says "I will make for you my famous aubergine stew." But he might have been trying to sound foreign, and therefore more culinary.
As for the "Trade you [your thing] for [my thing]" thing, that's more common, probably because when we construct it in our minds, the expression is more mathematical than most sentences.
posted by AugieAugustus at 8:29 AM on January 12, 2010
There's an example in a Deep Space Nine episode where Sisko is being all flirty-chef with Kasidy and he says "I will make for you my famous aubergine stew." But he might have been trying to sound foreign, and therefore more culinary.
As for the "Trade you [your thing] for [my thing]" thing, that's more common, probably because when we construct it in our minds, the expression is more mathematical than most sentences.
posted by AugieAugustus at 8:29 AM on January 12, 2010
This comes up all the time playing Settlers of Catan, as torticat noted. For some reason, many people will say "I'll trade you X for Y" when they mean "I want X and am offering Y in exchange." My assumption has always been that people think more about what they want then what they're willing to give away, so they naturally mention it first.
posted by dfan at 8:47 AM on January 12, 2010
posted by dfan at 8:47 AM on January 12, 2010
You don't trade to someone, you trade with someone.
I will trade (with you): your X for my Y.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:01 AM on January 12, 2010
I will trade (with you): your X for my Y.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:01 AM on January 12, 2010
"I'll trade you my bike for $100" means I need cash.
"I'll trade you $100 for my bike" means you're a bike thief.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:46 AM on January 12, 2010
"I'll trade you $100 for my bike" means you're a bike thief.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:46 AM on January 12, 2010
"I'll trade you [your thing] for [my thing]" sounds completely wrong and confusing to me.
"I'll trade you! [Your thing] for [my thing]?" seems potentially ok. Same words, different pauses in the speech.
posted by vytae at 9:51 AM on January 12, 2010
"I'll trade you! [Your thing] for [my thing]?" seems potentially ok. Same words, different pauses in the speech.
posted by vytae at 9:51 AM on January 12, 2010
This bugs me, too. As far as I know, "I will trade you an apple for a cookie" implies that the speaker has an apple and wants a cookie. It does not imply that the speaker has a cookie and wants an apple. Why do many people seem to think it does? I have no idea.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:38 AM on January 12, 2010
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:38 AM on January 12, 2010
Response by poster: I think I've stated this somewhat vaguely. I didn't mean to imply that anyone actually uses the phrase "to you" in a trade, I was somewhat extrapolating the bits -- that there's an implied transaction that isn't directly stated, and that order matters.
What annoys me is when people do not denote possession, and state the other person's object first.
Faint of Butt pretty much has it in his comment, and that's the construction that drives me nuts. But is it in any way wrong?
posted by mikeh at 2:00 PM on January 12, 2010
What annoys me is when people do not denote possession, and state the other person's object first.
Faint of Butt pretty much has it in his comment, and that's the construction that drives me nuts. But is it in any way wrong?
posted by mikeh at 2:00 PM on January 12, 2010
Best answer: It is wrong in that it confuses people, just as if you were to say "Can I lend you five dollars?" when you wanted to borrow five dollars. Neither is ungrammatical.
posted by languagehat at 2:06 PM on January 12, 2010
posted by languagehat at 2:06 PM on January 12, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
The trade goes both ways, so why should it matter which order you've mentioned the items? "I'll trade you my foo for your bar" is the same as "I'll trade you your bar for my foo".
posted by pompomtom at 8:19 PM on January 11, 2010