Subject:
|
Re: Here's a few for Maggie:
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:52:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
294 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Dave Schuler writes:
> > Browsing CNN.com I came upon an article about the BAFTA awards
> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/24/baftas/index.html
> > and noticed this apparent flub of the Queen's English:
> >
> > > BAFTA chairman Simon Relph said [Warren] Beatty was one of the most versatile
> > > and gifted filmmakers.
> >
> > > "His contribution to the film industry cannot be underestimated and we are
> > > delighted to honour his work with this award," he told the UK's Press
> > > Association.
> >
> > Now, I'm just a good ol' American, so far be it from me to question the
> > wisdom of a native English speaker, but it seems to me that if one cannot
> > "underestimate" something, then that means that one cannot give an estimate
> > that is less than the actual value of something; ie, that the thing's value
> > is so low that no lower estimate is possible! What a slur on poor Beatty!
> > I demand an apology on his behalf!
>
> It may be a slur but it's not libel. His skill as a director is only
> slightly higher than his skill as an actor which is only slightly higher
> than his skill as a deep political thinker. Since his skill at that is
> nil... well, you do the math.
It's a statement in the same vein as "I couldn't care less." The
intent is clear, but the language is muddy. Is it "cannot be under-
estimated" because it is so obvious as to defy underestimation, or is
it impossible to have less esteem for it? The former is intended;
the latter can be read.
> Perhaps this speaker (Relph) really *meant* what he said rather than
> flubbing, and was counting on Beatty not to catch it.
He probably meant "shouldn't" but decided it wasn't strong enough,
but that "mustn't" was too pedantic. I can see precisely why he
phrased it that way--the modal "can" does tons of duty and it gets
confusing when two possible meanings are diametrically opposing.
But who knows, maybe he chose a dual entendre on purpose. :)
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Here's a few for Maggie:
|
| (...) It may be a slur but it's not libel. His skill as a director is only slightly higher than his skill as an actor which is only slightly higher than his skill as a deep political thinker. Since his skill at that is nil... well, you do the math. (...) (23 years ago, 25-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
