Usage of "to trade X for Y"

Question

When you say something like "trading X for Y", do you use it in such as way that X is the thing you are giving up, and Y the thing you're getting in return? Or do you use it the other way around?

I've seen both. Personally I think the first one is the logical one, but the second seems more common.
Thoughts?

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]When you say something like "trading X for Y", do you use it in such as way that X is ... I've seen both. Personally I think the first one is the logical one, but the second seems more common. Thoughts?[/nq]
When I told a friend I got a new car for my wife, he asked where he could get a trade like that.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]When you say something like "trading X for Y", do you use it in such as way that X is ... around? I've seen both. Personally I think the first one is the logical one, but the second seems more common.[/nq]
It just means that two things are exchanged; there's no "direction" implied.

Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]When you say something like "trading X for Y", do you use it in such as way that X is ... I've seen both. Personally I think the first one is the logical one, but the second seems more common. Thoughts?[/nq]
Consider:
Jack traded the cow for five magic beans.
Jack traded five magic beans for the cow.
In the story, Jack starts with a cow and ends up with five magic beans. In my judgement, the only one of the two sentences that says the cow was in his initial possession is the first. You "trade" a thing you own.

Who are these people who are saying it the other way around?

Best Donna Richoux

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]When you say something like "trading X for Y", do ... is the logical one, but the second seems more common.[/nq]
[nq:1]It just means that two things are exchanged; there's no "direction" implied.[/nq]
It wouldn't do to depend upon that meaning being understood. While some people might interpret it that way, a lot of other people, including me, would take "trade X for Y" to mean to give X and get Y.
If you omit the "for" phrase, "trade" can refer simply to a bilateral exchange. For example, saying "trade tips on the market" means to pass tips from each party to the other. But "trade tips on the market for seats at the musical" means only one of two parties gives tips and gets seats.

If there's any doubt about what meaning will be inferred, there are safer, more explicit ways to say it, like "A can get seats at the show in exchange for giving tips on the market to B".

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Who are these people who are saying it the other way around?[/nq]
Here's an example:
"The issue was whether passengers would be trading convenience for safety with the new generation of long-range twin-engine planes" (http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/03/02/trfreq.2.t.php)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]When you say something like "trading X for Y", do ... is the logical one, but the second seems more common.[/nq]
[nq:1]It just means that two things are exchanged; there's no "direction" implied.[/nq]
In my (British) usage, I should not use "trade" like this at all. To "trade" means to exchange for money.
I might "swap" X for Y - give up X for Y.
I could "trade in" X for Y - take X to a shop (&c) to get Y (and pay extra), eg trade in my Austin A30 for a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow.

There is a film called "Trading Places". For a long time I did not see what it had to do with any trading place, until I finally realised it meant "Swapping Places" (or at least I think it does). John
**Replies to (Email Removed) have a 1Kb maximum filter. Please ask for alternate address if you wish directly to reply, include a + in the subject line.**

John A Green
Leigh (Lancashire) or Aberdeen

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Who are these people who are saying it the other way around?[/nq]
[nq:1]Here's an example: "The issue was whether passengers would be trading convenience for safety with the new generation of long-range twin-engine planes" (http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/03/02/trfreq.2.t.php)[/nq]
That's not the other way around. It's about whether the passengers would give up convenience to gain safety.

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://www.geocities.com/opus731/

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Here's an example: "The issue was whether passengers would be trading convenience for safety with the new generation of long-range twin-engine planes" (http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/03/02/trfreq.2.t.php)[/nq]
[nq:1]That's not the other way around. It's about whether the passengers would give up convenience to gain safety.[/nq]
I think you misunderstood the quote. In the context, the issue was whether passengers traveling in the then-new long-range twin-engine planes were getting their new-found convenience at the expense of reduced safety. Convenience here means being able to travel to farther destinations without connection. The safety concern here is the reduced redundancy compared with the previous four-engine planes. (I'm applying my background knowledge from other sources here.)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]That's not the other way around. It's about whether the passengers would give up convenience to gain safety.[/nq]
[nq:1]I think you misunderstood the quote. In the context, the issue was whether passengers traveling in the then-new long-range twin-engine ... here is the reduced redundancy compared with the previous four-engine planes. (I'm applying my background knowledge from other sources here.)[/nq]
I may have.
Here's the surrounding text:

Krakauer entered my life in 1985, when I interviewed him for one of my first Frequent Traveler columns. The issue was whether passengers would be trading convenience for safety with the new generation of long-range twin-engine planes then coming into service across the Atlantic. "Big twins" need to stay closer to an alternative airport in the event of an engine failure, which would require an emergency landing. Krakauer was involved in the debate that set the limit for how many minutes flying time is safe for an aircraft under half power.

Yup, after paying close attention to what was written, I think the writer messed up and got it bass ackwards. That happens sometimes.
Skitt
I may not understand what you say, but
I'll defend to your death my right to deny it.
Albert Alligator

Usenet · Answer

The first way.
John Holmes:
[nq:2]It just means that two things are exchanged; there's no "direction" implied.[/nq]
I disagree.
John Green:
[nq:1]In my (British) usage, I should not use "trade" like this at all. To "trade" means to exchange for money.[/nq]
I disagree. Outside of specific business contexts, to "trade" means to exchange for something that is not money.

Mark Brader, Toronto "The frencited scrivener, I, outspode." (Email Removed) Jonathan Buss

Usage of "to trade X for Y"

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions