Saturday March 6, 2004
"I don't think it means what you think it means"
I recently encountered two amusing slogans with meanings that were the opposite of what was intended—at least, the opposite of what I think was intended.
At a student rally: "You can't underestimate the power of students!"
Intended meaning: "It would be unwise to ignore the power of students!"
Actual meaning: "No matter how low your estimate of the power of students, they actually have even less power than that!"
Suggested revision: "Don't underestimate the power of students!"
One bumper sticker among many on the back of a Volvo: "The road to hell is paved with Republicans."
Intended meaning: "Republicans are going to lead us to hell."
Actual meaning: "The process that leads us to hell is going to involve disposing of a lot of Republicans."
Suggested revision: "The road to hell was paved by Republicans."
[Now playing: "Working With Fire and Steel" by China Crisis]
I am The Tensor, and I approve this post.
07:12 PM
in Linguistics
| Submit:
| Links:
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c88ad53ef00d834214e6553ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "I don't think it means what you think it means":
» Advice For John Kerry from Idealogian
Disclosure by the Kerrys We hope the senator realizes that there cannot be too much disclosure by a candidate seeking the trust of the public for the nation's highest office. He should also be made aware that you can't put... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 23, 2004 11:11:13 AM
Comments
Reading "You can't underestimate ..." it occured to me that "you can't" in some contexts DOES mean "don't" or "we will not permit you to" or "I don't want you to."
Think of "you can't sit there" or "you can't do this to me" or "you can't just watch TV and surf the internet all day."
Posted by: Qov at Mar 7, 2004 3:25:40 PM
It's true that "can" often means "have permission to". That's the usage that prescriptive grammarians often insist is incorrect: they want you to say "May I have a cookie?" not "Can I have a cookie?". Most speakers seem not to make this distinction, using "can" in both cases.
However, for me, "you can't" is not equivalent to "don't". For me, it's restricted to cases where it makes sense for me to be withholding my permission. "You can't sit there" and "You can't just watch..." are fine on that reading. I think that "You can't do this to me!" sounds humorous, and it's precisely because somebody saying it seems to be under the misapprehension that their permission matters. (We really need circumstances here to make this clear, I think, but I'm lazy.) But "you can't" doesn't work well with other people's mental states. For example, "You can't misunderstand him" and "You can't believe that", for me, have only the "it's not possible" readings, not the "you're not allowed" readings.
That's why I think "You can't underestimate..." sounds funny. Since underestimation takes place in my head, it doesn't make sense for the speaker to be withholding permission, so I get the "it's not possible" reading.
I wouldn't be surprised if some speakers did have the "you can't" = "do not" meaning in their idiolects, though. It's a small jump from "I withhold permission" to "do not". Language change in action!
Posted by: The Tensor at Mar 7, 2004 4:16:30 PM
"You can't underestimate..." sounds fine to me with the "don't..." reading. Saturday Night Live did a sketch, some years back, based on the ambiguity in the parting words of a nuclear plant manager: "You can't put too much water in the reactor." The people on shift argued over whether that meant that any amount of water isn't too much, or that too much water in the reactor was a bad idea. They ended up guessing (wrong, of course), and the manager, surveying the ensuing mushroom cloud from a cafe miles away, remarked to the waitress, "You can't stare too long at a nuclear explosion," leaving her scratching her head. Ba da bum. Of course, those aren't mental states.
At any rate, I think "You can't underestimate..." sounds all right to me. Though ambiguous.
The other slogan, though, is in my mind unquestionably right. It's a play on Twain's "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"--that is, following too many good intentions takes you to hell. Similarly, following too many Republicans takes you to hell. No more wrong than Twain was.
Posted by: Lance at Mar 9, 2004 10:12:57 AM
The reason the "road to hell" one sounds funny to me is that "paved with good intentions" must have a metaphorical reading, because good intentions are immaterial. Since Republicans are material objects, paving a road with them sounds like *paving a road with them*.
Suppose, for example, I wanted to express the idea that fatty foods are seductive but bad for you. If I said, "The road to hell is paved with melted cheese!", wouldn't you think that sounded odd?
I guess in both cases, I should have said that the slogans are ambiguous rather than wrong—but then I wouldn't have been able to use the Princess Bride quote!
Posted by: The Tensor at Mar 9, 2004 3:46:04 PM
Isn't it "do not" rather than "don't" in The Princess Bride ? (In the film, at least?)
I agree that it sounds like the Republicans are being used as paving slabs, but since the road itself is metaphorical I don't see that as the problem so much as that there's no obviously correct way to map "republicans" onto "good intentions".
It's interesting, incidentally, to Google '"road to hell is paved" -intentions'. Carbohydrates, SUVs and change, apparently.
Posted by: Tim May at Mar 12, 2004 3:46:06 PM
"Republicanism?"
Posted by: T Campbell at Mar 15, 2004 6:45:08 AM
This ambiguity of "can't underestimate" has often been noted with "can't" and any negative-valency word. Perhaps related is the overwrought speaker who announces a public event of some kind (I can't remember what: a concert, perhaps) and says "Don't miss it if you can", meaning of course "Don't miss it if you can help it" or something of the sort.
Posted by: John Cowan at Mar 24, 2004 2:29:58 PM
I once saw a sign (in Louisiana) that said "Support our veterans, lest they not be forgotten." And the "lest" was even in italics, while the rest wasn't. Whoever'd made the sign apparently thought it was an "old"-sounding word or something, and didn't know how to use it to boot.
(I seem to remember it was around Thanksgiving or Christmas and they were standing around outside Wal-Mart collecting money for some charity. I was saddened.)
Posted by: Jonathan at Dec 14, 2006 11:13:04 PM
