Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
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.
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?
There are other words that work both ways like this—I've run into one or two before—but just now the only ones I can think of are words that are sometimes misused that way. "Rob" and "steal", for example. "Fire" and "shoot"—and in this company I probably don't have to explain it, but just in case, one fires the weapon and shoots the target. (Why would one shoot a gun? Those things are expensive!) And "ravel", perhaps, though I gather there are some who argue that it actually belongs in Glenn's category.
I thought of a few others, like "teach" and "learn", but I would argue that's a different situation. Although "teach" and "learn" are different verbs, in terms of their meaning they are the transitive and intransitive forms of the same action. (The same with "kill" and "die", for another example.)
And that's what I think Ron Draney has going, too; a baby's mother nurses (transitive) the baby, but the baby nurses (intransitive). Dusting...well, no, on second thought that's not transitive vs intransitive, that's two different transitive actions. But it's still not what Glenn was talking about, just two different kinds of dusting that the same person can do. And I think shelled walnuts have had their shells removed, but it's a shell lobster that has its shell still on....if anyone uses that term. (What other kind of lobster is there?)
Technically, "introduce" isn't reversible like that. If I introduce my sister to my mother-in-law ("Mom, I'd like you to meet my sister Janet...") I very naturally turn around and introduce my mother-in-law to my sister in the next breath. But they're not the same action. But I agree they're close, and easy to confuse.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)