At my work, I just received an e-mail about TAKE OUR DAUGHTERS & SONS TO WORK DAY (sic). The e-mail concludes with "Thank you for … your interest in exposing your children to the world of work."
OK. I am embarrassed by this sentence, but it is really what the e-mail says.
Anyway, this made me realize that in many contexts, the phrase "expose X to Y" and "expose Y to X" can be completely identical in meaning. The trick is that the verb expose can mean:
1. to provide someone with the opportunity to experience new ideas, activities, etc. so that they can learn about them
2. to allow something that is usually covered or hidden to be seen
Using definition 1, you would expose a novice to a reality.
Using definition 2, you would expose a reality to a novice.
So in my case, you could either "expose your children to the world of work" or "expose the world of work to your children." This strikes me as being an unusual quality. The grammar of the phrase does not dictate which role is being played, but rather the semantics. Which object of the verb is playing the role of novice, and which the reality? Semantics will make it clear. Or will it?
If I "expose my mother-in-law to my sister," who is potentially in for the shock? Which of the objects of the verb is becoming enlightened?
In the end, I wonder whose eyes would be opened should I expose my children to the world of work.
Glenn,
Is this more than a single word or phrase having different definitions? I think of 'cleave' meaning both to adhere or cling and split or divide. And, we sometimes sing a hymn which says, "God will take care of you." It would be comforting for his followers and scary for his enemies.
Emmett
Well, all of these fall into the category of ambiguous opposites, of a sort. Maybe I'm drawing an artificial distinction by focusing on the ambiguous roles of the two objects of the verb, but I don't think so.
I think the rule with two objects is that the grammar governs the semantics. The following pairs both make sense, but have very different meaning.
I put the books on the papers.
I put the papers on the books.
I introduced Mary to John.
I introduced John to Mary.
You can't really do that with cleave: the two meanings don't follow the same structural patterns. For the sticky meaning you have to say "X cleaves to Y" or "X and Y cleave (together)"; for the choppy meaning you have to say "A cleaves X from Y" or "A cleaves X." So while there appear to be two opposite meanings in the dictionary definitions, in practice, there is little possibility for confusion.
The "take care of" example is closer, in that the semantic context governs which of two possible opposite meanings are in play.
But I keep coming back to the reversal of the two objects in "A exposes X to Y." Maybe I'm just fixated.
So does the mother nurse the baby, or does the baby nurse at the mother's breast?
Why do you dust a table to remove dust from it, but you dust a cake with powdered sugar to put stuff on it? Likewise, why is it that shelled walnuts are those with the shells removed, but shelled lobster has the shell still on?
Introduce works too:
Introduce science to kindergartners
Introduce kindergartners to science
But the meaning is same as expose, so not quite a discovery.