by, with or for

[beachboy]

John will be replaced/substituted by/with/for Paul.
This word can be replaced/substituted by/with/for another.

Which prepositions are suitable in theses cases?

 

[jctgf]

hi,
I am just a student but I would say that FOR is never used in these situations.
I am not sure about WITH as well and, so, I would stick with BY.
Just a guess.
Let's see what the teachers say.
thanks.

 

[David L.]

John will be replaced/substituted by/with/for Paul.

John will be replaced by Paul.
as a noun: Soy milk is a substitute for dairy milk.
There is no substitute for quality.
as a verb: You can substitute diary milk with soy milk.

This word can be substituted for another.

 

[beachboy]

As for John will be replaced by Paul, is it ambiguous? Can it mean either that Paul will be responsible for the substitution or that Paul will take John's place?

 

[jctgf]

John will be replaced/substituted by/with/for Paul.
This word can be substituted for another.

so, "substituted for Paul" and "substituted for another" are actually possible? I am speecheless because I have never seen such a contruction before.
can I always use FOR when "something is replaced BY something"?
is it common and informal english? if I use FOR in situations like this will people in the street give me that "what a hell is he saying?!?" look?
thanks.

 

[stuartnz]

so, "substituted for Paul" and "substituted for another" are actually possible? I am speecheless because I have never seen such a contruction before.
can I always use FOR when "something is replaced BY something"?
is it common and informal english? if I use FOR in situations like this will people in the street give me that "what a hell is he saying?!?" look?
thanks.

As a strictly part-time ESOL tutor, I would say yes. "substituted for is possible. However, as David indicated, its meaning differs from "substituted with. "John was substituted with Paul" would likely be understood by most native speakers to mean that John was replaced by Paul. ""John was substituted for Paul" would likely be understood to mean the opposite, that Paul was replaced by John.

 

[David L.]

As for John will be replaced by Paul, is it ambiguous? Can it mean either that Paul will be responsible for the substitution or that Paul will take John's place?

There is no indication in the sentence as it stands, as to who is deciding that this will happen - it indicates only that Paul is taking John's place (on the team or whatever).