Grammar question: substitute A for B

[Theoretician]

If a national newspaper editor told you to substitute A for B in a recipe that you've not yet seen, would you expect the original recipe to contain

a) A
b) B
c) could be either

B

B.

I would expect B to be in the original and I would use A as the substitute.

However, I guess it could make sense the other way round too. Sorry, not very helpful!

A

A is in - for B which is the new ingredient

I would say that the recipe contains B which could be substituted by A (A for B suggests that B is in the recipe but could be swapped with A)

B

Logically B but it could be both. For example I have a recipe that uses milk and water. Sometimes I use all milk or less water and more milk.

I don't even understand the question!

Put a bit of both in?

A in original recipe. Substitute it with B.

Hmm in football, the player who is taken off is substituted. And the player who come on instead is the substitute.

Er, I think it could be read either way.

What Discobabe said.

I think.

Head hurts.

Either

Substitute A for B definitely means B in the original recipe

If it said substitute A with B then it would be A in the original recipe

B you are using A as a substitute for the missing/unavailable B.

What Emochild said

B

B

Yup. Emochild's right: the crucial distinction is between the use of for rather than with

Why d'ya ask, OP?

I vote for B.

That brinks us up to 18 votes, I think. (Up to Sage, then mine in this post.)

• 3 for A
• 15 for B
• 2 for c

Article in the telegraph:-

www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/08/01/ditch-sausages-for-a-longer-life-say-harvard-scientists/

contains the following sentence:-

Substituting eggs for plant protein also led to a 19 per cent reduction in death risk.

I think that means plant protein is worse than eggs, which is the opposite of what they were trying to say.

I'm with Emochild, too. Distinction between for and for.

B

Hmm. For and with, obviously.