BS: .'Can't be over/under-estimated!':

Subject: RE: BS: .'Can't be over/under-estimated!':
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 19 - 01:03 PM

Agreed, Dave, but don't call me Shirley.

Subject: RE: BS: .'Can't be over/under-estimated!':
From: meself
Date: 08 Dec 19 - 12:48 PM

The difference between a lot of these and the 'over/under-estimate' thing is that you always know what someone means when they mis/use the others - with 'can't be over/under-estimated', I find sometimes, as in the above instance, that I have to stop and think for a moment before I get the point. If you aren't familiar with the subject at hand, or haven't been paying close attention, you might not know if you're supposed to think that the matter is of utmost import or if you are being advised not to take it too seriously. "The danger cannot be overestimated" - okay, so do I take extreme precautions, or do I relax about the whole thing?

Subject: RE: BS: .'Can't be over/under-estimated!':
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 19 - 11:23 AM

From both sides of the pond, I think

A maximum of 80 to 100 (or any such numbers). Why do we need a range? A maximum, or minimum, is absolute surely!

Subject: RE: BS: .'Can't be over/under-estimated!':
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 19 - 09:27 AM

"Phenomena" used as a singular.

"The campaign for change finally reached a crescendo."

Subject: RE: BS: .'Can't be over/under-estimated!':
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 08 Dec 19 - 08:49 AM

The one that gets me is about price reductions.

"Price reduction 80%".

Does that mean reduced to 80% or reduced by 80%?

Even more confusing when they say "Up to 80%".

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: .'Can't be over/under-estimated!':
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 08 Dec 19 - 07:17 AM

another Americanism which doesn't make sense, ' a light went off in my head ' a light went on would make more sense.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: .'Can't be over/under-estimated!':
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 19 - 05:15 AM

Even better still, I can't be arsed.

Subject: RE: BS: .'Can't be over/under-estimated!':
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 19 - 04:20 AM

I can understand the confusion with the card less phrase.

"I couldn't care less" is right as a statement but posed as a question it may be "do you think I could care less?" . Or, better still, am I bovvered? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: .'Can't be over/under-estimated!':
From: Mr Red
Date: 08 Dec 19 - 04:12 AM

under the circumstances - has been around for many years.
How can you be under something that puts you at the centre?

Subject: RE: BS: .'Can't be over/under-estimated!':
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 19 - 03:42 PM

The overestimated/underestimated thing is rife here and it drives me nuts. I hector Mrs Steve about it every time I hear it, but she could care less.

Subject: RE: BS: .'Can't be over/under-estimated!':
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Dec 19 - 03:27 PM

Another daft Americanism like their practice of saying “I could care less” when they mean “I couldn’t care less”.

Subject: BS: .'Can't be over/under-estimated!':
From: meself
Date: 07 Dec 19 - 03:18 PM

(This will be one of those tiresome threads about a language quibble. I'm well aware that most people don't give a damn about this sort of thing; this thread is for the harmless amusement of those who do.)

I noticed a year or two ago, that a number of journalists had begun to misuse the expression 'cannot be over-estimated' (or under-estimated, or over/under-emphasized). They now use it to mean that something SHOULD NOT BE over-estimated, rather than to mean (hyperbolically) that something is of such magnitude that it would be impossible to over-estimate it - in other words, they use it to mean the opposite of what the term logically, and conventionally, means. So, for example, they'll say something like, 'The danger of exploding cellphones cannot be over-estimated', when their point is that the danger is not great, and therefore SHOULD NOT BE over-estimated.

Today, I heard the worst one yet: a journalist on CTV, re: the American-Iranian prisoner exchange: 'Its importance cannot be over-estimated OR under-estimated!" So, if you're considering its importance, your estimate of its importance can only be correct.

Are you getting this in the UK and elsewhere, or it this just a North American thing?