Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
I've just seen it in this article, and have heard it endlessly from a legally minded US colleague who keeps talking about "swapping out" sections of a legal agreement, meaning replacing dummy sections with new sections.
The use in the article seems quite odd to me. What do Grant and Martha and y'all have to say about this expression?
Actually, the use in the article is the one I am most familar with. I might think of it more in the terms of a bad component in a device (car, computer, etc.) which is replaced by a good component.
I might differentiate it from "swap" in that this could mean a transaction or trade or barter. In this sense, I have relinquished ownership of something to gain ownership of something else. "Swap out" then means I have ownership of all three items, the good component, presumed bad component, and the larger device, but the bad component is now "out" of the device, traded for the good component that is now in the device.
Emmett
Like Emmett, I find the use in this article unremarkable. While I agree with Emmett, that you can easily use "swap out" for replacing a bad part for a good one, I might be more likely to use "replace" in that context. For me, "swap out" is particularly applicable in a context as described in this article, where both parts are still useful, and the removed part will be retained for possible future service.
I hear it a lot in the context of computer circuitry, where an n-meg thingamajig is "swapped out" for a tera-whatsit. The thingamajig is kept to put in some poor schlub's computer, or to replace a comparable thingamajig with the swapped out and retained one.
Slight elaboration--I might also rather use "replace" than "swap out". I was simply reporting my understanding of the term.
Also related is "hot swappable" where the components can be replaced without turning off the power. Google returns lots of hits. The second or third one in my list was a definition.
Emmett
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)