# I can take (you) over for a while



## Hector9

I'm reading a webpage about Phrasal verbs and I want to know if my sentence is correct:

*Original:*

If you are tired of driving, I can take over for a while.

*My attempt:*

If you are tired of driving, I can take you over for a while.

Thank you!!


----------



## Wandering JJ

Hola Hector!

The correct one is the original: ... I can take over for a while (tomar el mando). 

The second one means something completely different.


----------



## fenixpollo

I can take over for a while = I can take over driving for a while.

If you want to add an indirect object, you can say "I can take over driving from you for a while."


----------



## KeepinOn

fenixpollo, "*from you*"? It never would have occurred to me to say it that way. What I say and what I've heard is "I can take over driving *for you* for a while."


----------



## inib

fenixpollo said:


> I can take over for a while = I can take over driving for a while.
> 
> If you want to add an indirect object, you can say "I can take over driving from you for a while."


 I would definitely say "I can take over driving for a while", or "I can take over from you for a while", but perhaps I would avoid combining the two: "I can take over driving from you for a while".


----------



## blasita

WR Dictionary: _to take over *from* sb sustituir(conj.⇒) a algn._

But could I ask something, please? Then, _take over (driving) *for* you_ would mean something like "para que tú no tengas que hacerlo" (?).

Thank you. Saludos.


----------



## dilema

blasita said:


> WR Dictionary: _to take over *from* sb sustituir(conj.⇒) a algn._
> 
> But could I ask something, please? Then, _take over (driving) *for* you_ would mean something like "para que tú no tengas que hacerlo" (?).
> 
> Thank you. Saludos.


El _for_ suele usarse para las formas en las que nosotros usamos un _te_:
_Si quieres te sustituyo conduciendo/al volante_


----------



## blasita

dilema said:


> El _for_ suele usarse para las formas en las que nosotros usamos un _te_:
> _Si quieres te sustituyo conduciendo/al volante_



Creía que al cambiar la preposición, cambiaba también el matiz, es decir, de "from" (te puedo sustituir/relevar al volante) a "for" (puedo conducir por ti ??).

Gracias, Dilema. Un saludo.


----------



## The Prof

blasita said:


> Creía que al cambiar la preposición, cambiaba también el matiz, es decir, de "from" (te puedo sustituir/relevar al volante) a "for" (puedo conducir por ti ??).


 
Así lo veo yo también.


----------



## blasita

The Prof said:


> Así lo veo yo también.



Gracias, The Prof.  Saludos.


----------



## ribran

KeepinOn said:


> fenixpollo, "*from you*"? It never would have occurred to me to say it that way. What I say and what I've heard is "I can take over driving *for you* for a while."



I completely agree, KeepinOn. I'll keep thinking about it, but "from you" sounds strange to me.


----------



## The Prof

ribran said:


> I completely agree, KeepinOn. I'll keep thinking about it, but "from you" sounds strange to me.


 
That is the version that comes most naturally to me: I'll take over (the driving) _from_ you.


----------



## fenixpollo

This is just a guess, but I think that while "from" and "for" are interchangeable here, they may have slightly different implications:
take over the driving for you - I'm doing you a favor
take over the driving from you - I'm taking control


----------



## KeepinOn

Yes, I totally agree with the differentiation that Fenixpollo just pointed out above.

If we take what Fenixpollo said into consideration, then in Hector9's first sentence the preposition to use would be "for", not "from". However, if there are still many people who prefer "from" in the sense of "doing you a favor" then perhaps there is dialectal variation here. What do you think?

Blasita gave a sentence in Spanish above to show how to say this in Spanish, the sentence was:
"te puedo sustituir/relevar al volante"

If I'm thinking right about this, I think the above sentence shows that the construction is basically the same in English and Spanish. 

I'll label the direct object (DO) and indirect object (IO) in the Spanish and English versions below:

"te (*IO*) puedo sustituir/relevar al volante (*DO*)"


"I'll take over flying (*DO*) for you (*IO*) for a while."


It's really the same construction, no? I think the thing that makes it seem confusing is that there can be a difference in nuance that Fenixpollo pointed out, and in Spanish indirect objects are one word, but in English indirect objects (often) are preceded by "to" or sometimes "for." Is this what's creating some confusion about this construction?

If I were to say "I'll take over flying for her" in Spanish would it be, "Le puedo sustituir al volante." Right?


----------



## The Prof

KeepinOn said:


> Yes, I totally agree with the differentiation that Fenixpollo just pointed out above.
> 
> If we take what Fenixpollo said into consideration, then in Hector9's first sentence the preposition to use would be "for", not "from". However, if there are still many people who prefer "from" in the sense of "doing you a favor" then perhaps there is dialectal variation here. What do you think?


 
I would use 'from' in Hector9's sentence, but not in the sense of "doing you a favour", but meaning "in place of you", and that is the sense that I understood Blasita's "te puedo sustituir/relevar al volante" to convey.
I thought that she was suggesting "... por ti" as the way of expressing the "as a favour" nuance.
Have I got that wrong?

I agree with Fenixpollo that "for" and "from" are interchangeable in the sentence, despite their (possibly) different implications.
Basically, I think that we native speakers have a preference here that is based more on what we have always used/heard!

That said, I can't help thinking that in fact "te puedo sustituir/relevar al volante" would be a perfectly adequate translation of _either_ English version and that "por ti", althouth it conveys "for you / on your behalf", is too strong here, for want of a better word.


----------



## blasita

The Prof said:


> I would use 'from' in Hector9's sentence, but not in the sense of "doing you a favour", but meaning "in place of you", and that is the sense that I understood Blasita's "te puedo sustituir/relevar al volante" to convey.
> I thought that she was suggesting "... por ti" as the way of expressing the "as a favour" nuance.
> Have I got that wrong?
> 
> *Yes, that´s right, I tried to ask if "for (por ti)" meant sort of "as a favour" (sorry if it was not clear). But they were not meant to be accurate translations, anyway (I´d rather say e.g. "conducir en tu lugar/conducir yo"). I was just trying to understand the nuance between them. Thanks.*


----------



## roanheads

As a good husband would say to his wife,

" If you are tired driving ( dear ) I'll take over for a while.


----------



## mimosa23

roanheads said:


> As a good husband would say to his wife,
> 
> " If you are tired driving ( dear ) I'll take over *from you* for a while.


----------



## roanheads

mimosa,
Do you think " from you " is really necessary ?


----------



## The Prof

roanheads said:


> mimosa,
> Do you think " from you " is really necessary ?


 
Not necessary at all - equally correct and clear with or without. 
(But just to be awkward, I would say "... if you are tired _of_ driving"!)


----------



## roanheads

Prof.
¡Me rindo !


----------



## KeepinOn

I'm the odd one out here because I wouldn't say and I've never heard "from you" in the original context that Hector9 provided in #1 (i.e. "If you are tired of driving I can take over for/from you for a while." Since so many perceive that "from" works just as well as "for" in this context, it looks like this may well be an example of dialectal variation because "from you" just sounds so wrong to me. Interesting!

I'd like to share that I found a very useful book called _The Ultimate Phrasal Verb Book_ by Carl Hart. I like it a lot because it supports my perception  

The book contains separate definitions of "take over* for*" and "take over *from*". Below I'll provide the exact definitions the book gives:

1. take over *from*/as: When people are elected, appointed, or hired to take control of a country, state, city, business, school, building, and so on, and to replace the people in control, they take over, take over as something, or take over for someone.
Example: _Carlos Ortega took over *from* Margaret Cummings, who had been the sales manager for 14 years. _

2. take over *for*: When you start to do a job or some work that other people are doing in order to allow them to take a break or because the previous shift has ended and a new shift has begun.
Example: _When Linda was sick she couldn’t care for her children, so her sister took over *for* her until she was well again._

The above 2 definitions from Hart’s book fit with my perceptions and I think it also fits with what Fenixpollo indicated earlier as well. Hart's definition #2 above fits with the context that Hector9 originally brought up. 

It's so interesting to see variation in how these constructions are used. I appreciate this thread for highlighting this variation. It really helps demonstrate that language is a living thing and there is a lot of variation and language continues to change.


----------



## Hector9

Thank you for the answers 



KeepinOn said:


> It's really the same construction, no?



Now I have another doubt, "*It's really the same construction, no*?" (Used by a native) is it correct?

Wow, this is the first time I see so, I thought that you natives say:

"*It's really the same construction, isn't it*?"

Are they the same if you want to ask for confirmation?


----------



## KeepinOn

I love Hector9's new question and I'd love to comment on it. Since it diverges from the main topic of this post, would it be better to bring it up in a new thread?


----------



## Hector9

KeepinOn said:


> I love Hector9's new question and I'd love to comment on it. Since it diverges from the main topic of this post, would it be better to bring it up in a new thread?



Here you are:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=10952561#post10952561


----------



## ribran

You're not alone, KeepinOn! See post #11.


----------



## The Prof

KeepinOn said:


> I'd like to share that I found a very useful book called _The Ultimate Phrasal Verb Book_ by Carl Hart. I like it a lot because it supports my perception
> 
> The book contains separate definitions of "take over* for*" and "take over *from*". Below I'll provide the exact definitions the book gives:
> 
> 1. take over *from*/as: When people are elected, appointed, or hired to take control of a country, state, city, business, school, building, and so on, and to replace the people in control, they take over, take over as something, or take over for someone.
> Example: _Carlos Ortega took over *from* Margaret Cummings, who had been the sales manager for 14 years. _
> 
> 2. take over *for*: When you start to do a job or some work that other people are doing in order to allow them to take a break or because the previous shift has ended and a new shift has begun.
> Example: _When Linda was sick she couldn’t care for her children, so her sister took over *for* her until *she* was well again._
> 
> The above 2 definitions from Hart’s book fit with my perceptions and I think it also fits with what Fenixpollo indicated earlier as well.


 
But this is from the MacMillan Dictionary:

1
[intransitive/transitive] to begin to do something that someone else was doing 
_Can__you__take__over__the__cooking__while__I__walk__the__dog__?_

*take (something) over from someone: *_*I’ll*_ _*take*_ _*over*_ _*from*_ _*you*_ _*for*_ _*a*_ _*moment*__*.*_


Which seems to fit with _my_ perceptions.


----------



## KeepinOn

The Prof, I saw that too  

I guess that's more evidence that there's variation going on here. These examples are a nice illustration that writers of textbooks and dictionaries give definitions and examples from specific perspectives/dialects/speech communities. The way they're written seems to give the impression that language is fixed, leaving little room for variation, but the reality of language, as we've seen here, is more fluid. Great discussion!


----------



## The Prof

KeepinOn said:


> The Prof, I saw that too
> 
> I guess that's more evidence that there's variation going on here. These examples are a nice illustration that writers of textbooks and dictionaries give definitions and examples from specific perspectives/dialects/speech communities. The way they're written seems to give the impression that language is fixed, leaving little room for variation, but the reality of language, as we've seen here, is more fluid. Great discussion!


 
Both are definitely used, but you are right about variation.  From comments that I have come across on other threads, there seems to be a wider use of "from" here in the UK than there is in the US.  It comes as a surprise, doesn't it, to learn that something that we think of as so natural does not appear natural to all other native speakers!  That, as you said, is the reality of language.


----------



## moosescoops

For what it's worth, I would definitely say "take over FOR you" (although I would also say "I can take it FROM here") - maybe a UK/US difference?


----------



## roanheads

I reckon the use of "for " or " from " depends on the nuances projected from different contexts as in the commentary of KeepinOn #22 with which I agree.
Saludos.


----------

