Sometimes, you find some words confusing in English usage. It could be writing a blog, an article or a book. I was editing a journal paper where the use of "Replace With or Replace by" was an issue.
For instance, "discrete outputs -1 and 1 can be replaced by coefficients of a discrete set (-1, 0, 1)".
Is this statement correct, or should is be replaced with? I have to share more comments used in various forums on the usage of this phrases, here.
That component was replaced by this one.
That component was replaced with this one.
In my native language, the equivalent of "replace by" can only be used in passive, and even then it's a bit weird unless a person is the object replacing something – perhaps this affects my judgment?
Web searches haven't come up with anything conclusive; the results are contradictory and speculative at best.
Are "replace with" and "replace by" interchangeable in active context? What about passive? Are there stylistic reasons to prefer one over the other?
==================
One may be right to suspect active/passive has a bearing on preferred usage. From Google Books...
1: Active voice favours with...
The company replaced workers by machines - 3 results
The company replaced workers with machines - 405 results
2: Passive voice favours by...
Workers were replaced by machines - 280 results
Workers were replaced with machines - 5 results
To be honest, I can't say I think there's anything wrong with the "less favoured" versions above, and it would be ridiculous to suggest there's any semantic difference. But note that whereas...
Tom replaced Dick by Harry
Tom replaced Dick with Harry
...are both equivalent (manager Tom took Dick off the team, and put Harry in instead), if we want to put that into the "passive" voice, we can only recast it as...
Dick was replaced by Tom with Harry
...or (more likely, imho)...
Dick was replaced with Harry by Tom
That's to say, if the "passive" form actually specifies the "agent", we have to use by for that agent. So we can only use with for the "replacement" in such (slightly contrived) constructions.
==================
In many, (maybe even most?), contexts, replace with and replace by will be interchangeable.
I don't think this has to do with active or passive voice.
Two types of objects can follow replace with and replace by -- the means / method of replacement or the new content. I would say there is a bias for using by to indicate means and with to indicate the substituted content, but I don't think this is an absolute rule:
an example of the former:
Replace numbers by doubling them.
An example of the latter:
Replace all words with codes.
==========================
You in fact, when we replace we are in favor of one thing or person, we are FOR another thing ou person. Each verb conveys or carries a subtle meaning. The fact of its being transitive and intransitive, or only transitive, or only intransitive makes a difference.
The coach replaced John for another player. (active voice)
John was replaced by the coach for another player. (passive voice)
John was replaced for another player.
Or is this? Another player replaced for John.
One may say it is confusing!!!
======================
Examples:
Employees were replaced with robots.
Weakness is replaced by stubbornness.
Welfare can be replaced by charity.
If both are possible, could you explain and give examples of each?
Which is the preposition that should follow "replaced", by or with? (When "replace" means "substitute"). Both are often possible and often used. However, I think there are differences with regard to the presence of an 'agent' of the action.
Employees were replaced with robots. Robots were clearly not the agent. Soemone else did the replacing. In fact, you could say Employees were replaced with robots by the President of the company.
Tom was fired. He was replaced by Fred. It's unclear if Fred did the firing, or if Fred is the new employee who is now doing Tom's job.
Weakness is replaced by stubbornness. OK
Welfare can be replaced by charity. Ok
But here, it sounds a bit like there is no agent, for example, that welfare 'automatically leads' to charity. It's like saying 'war is followed by peace', 'night is followed by day'. It sounds 'automatic, with no agent'.
=======================
"Replace" (in the sense of "substitute" as opposed to "put back") has two main usage patterns:
"He replaced the old light bulb with a new one."
"The new light bulb replaced the old one."
"By" comes in when the second pattern is put into passive voice:
"The old light bulb was replaced by the new one."
Occasionally even native speakers will mix these up and say things like:
*"He replaced the old light bulb by a new one."
but I suggest regarding that as an error.
=========================
In the first case “replace with” implies an outside party did the replacing. “John was replaced with Mary as the group leader by their boss”.
In the second case, “replace by” implies it was the second thing that replaced the first. No outside party was involved. “Hank Aaron was replaced by Derek Jeter in the title spot of the player with the most home runs”.
“With” refers mostly with instrumental:
“I can write with a word processor”
Before I get to “by”, I just want to add that other languages tend to make this difference easier. “By” his rather challenging to differentiate because it is of instrumental or agency.
“The factory workers were replaced by robots.”
=======================
Regarding 'with' and 'by', in the sense that A replaces B, they mean the same thing but the more common version is with by, and not with. It is also possible to understand that the other person made the decision to replace the first, and we're not told who by.
Adam was replaced with Bill.
Adam was replaced by Bill (both have same meaning; Adam goes and Bill comes in).
Adam was replaced by Bill (this can have the meaning that Bill decided that Adam had to be replaced, but the sentence doesn't say who Bill picked to replace Adam).
==========================
If you are referring to replacing something that is broken, old, or not working/inoperative, then you replace it with a new one.
If you are referring to filling the role of someone or something with a substitute, then it is 'replaced by'.
"Human bank tellers have all but been replaced by ATMs."
Humans were not 'faulty', but ATMs were a cheaper substitute for one of the main duties of a teller; and more efficient, since they 'work' 24/7 and don't demand overtime!
=====================
Someone said his colleague just asked him which of the statements below was correct:
“System A will be replaced by System B” or
“System A will be replaced with System B”
Note that in this context System A and System B are competing software packages that are removed / installed by third parties. System B does not install or remove System A.
Defining it from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, it looks as though they're interchangeable -
'replace somebody/something with/by somebody/something -
"It is not a good idea to miss meals and replace them with snacks." '
But Longman's has this example - "They replaced the permanent staff with part-timers".- where I don't think "by" would work.
And in this example from the Free Dictionary - "the manual worker is being replaced by the machine" - I'm not sure "with" would really work.
And here are two from Merriam-Webster's:
"I replaced the old rug with a new one."
"Paper bags have been largely replaced by plastic bags."
In fact all the active examples with a preposition I can find in dictionaries have "with", and all the passive ones have "by". So It looks to me as if "with" goes better with active clauses and "by" with passive clauses.
I was happy to find more news on exploration activities in Bayelsa Stae of Nigeria, showing the riches in the Niger Delta. Nigeria’s oil sector has received a major boost as American oil major, ExxonMobil Corporation yesterday revealed discovery of significant oil with a potential recoverable resource of between 500 million and 1 billion barrels of oil on the Owowo field offshore Nigeria.
