0

I came across that headline in NYtimes:

"Seahawks plan to trade Russell Wilson to the Broncos"

is it same as:

"Seahawks plan to trade Russell Wilson WITH the Broncos"???

ColleenV
  • 11,971
  • 13
  • 47
  • 85
henryke araudjo
  • 255
  • 2
  • 8
  • 2
    Check your examples. They are identical. I suspect you meant to use the preposition with in the second. – Ronald Sole Mar 09 '22 at 14:55
  • In the context of trading a player to another sports team, to is idiomatic, not with. – Jack O'Flaherty Mar 09 '22 at 16:52
  • @Ronald Sole, you're ritght, I've edited. tnks – henryke araudjo Mar 09 '22 at 17:03
  • @Jack O'Flaherty, "tade to" is a phrasal verb? – henryke araudjo Mar 09 '22 at 17:09
  • 1
    @henrykearaudjo I don't think trade to is a phrasal verb, I just think to is the idiomatic preposition in that context. While the player may have been traded for another player, if only one player is mentioned and his destination is being described, the word to is used. – Jack O'Flaherty Mar 09 '22 at 17:14
  • 1
    In addition to what @JackO'Flaherty said, sometimes we face some problems in other languages we learn due to incorrect translations. You might face a preposition in a language in a specific situation that you don't even use one in your own language. Or some other times when you translate a preposition and you don't change the translation in other situations with the same preposition, you face these kinds of issues you mentioned in your question. – Mohd Sala Apr 09 '22 at 13:45

1 Answers1

1

Trading with (a country or region) is basically about commerce. They conducted their trading with animal skins, not coins.

Also, you can trade places with someone at a table, or in a row of seats, for example.

If you exchange one player for another "with" does not work. However, "for" does work. They plan to trade player A for player B.

Also, you can trade one player to another team.

Lambie
  • 44,522
  • 4
  • 33
  • 88