Another misunderestimation
« previous post | next post »
Devin Henry, "Globe heaps scorn on Trump for Paris exit", The Hill 6/3/2017:
“I really think that is the major consequence of today: it’s not about the Paris agreement,” said Christiana Figueres, the former head of the United Nation’s climate change mission.
“I think the real problem today and the real sadness is the absolute death blow to the international credibly of the current U.S. leadership. … The blow to the international political credibility of the United States really cannot be underestimated.”
For an extensive discussion of the issues involved in this common scalar inversion, see “The Estimation Game“, 4/3/2014, and the links therein.
A small sample of similar examples in the current Google News archive:
[link] While celebrating World Environment Day on June5, the significant relevance of ecotourism cannot be underestimated and needs to be suitably highlighted.
[link] Det-Supt Bray said the significance of Mahoney's guilty plea cannot be underestimated.
[link] The role of business cannot be underestimated, and it is already remarkable that firms like BlackRock, Shell, and Goldman Sachs, as well as prominent business leaders such as Elon Musk, have raised their voice in support of the Paris agreement.
[link] The importance of engaging with HR and understanding its needs cannot be underestimated.
[link] The adverse economic impact of that theater being closed for years cannot be underestimated.
Or if too much is not enough for you, see "No post too obscure", 11/27/2009.
[h/t Paul Kay]
I said,
June 4, 2017 @ 3:11 pm
Just wondering… maybe we’re reading “cannot” wrong? Maybe it’s an imperative? No one is allowed to underestimate these things. If they do, danger!
[(myl) That's the "cannot = must not" theory, first proposed by Barbara Wallraff in 2004. The problem with this theory is that it doesn't account for the large number of alternative phrasings — "impossible to underestimate", "difficult to understate", "hard to undervalue", …]
Bob Ladd said,
June 4, 2017 @ 3:25 pm
@I: Yes! This has always seemed to me the reason why this construction is so confusing, not (or not only) because of the poor monkey brains that MYL keeps reminding us about. I'm glad I'm not the only one who reads the "cannot" here in this way.
Steve Morrison said,
June 4, 2017 @ 7:32 pm
Well, the passage wasn’t terribly well proofread in any case; note the phrase “international credibly” instead of “international credibility”.
rpsms said,
June 6, 2017 @ 9:45 am
Misunderestimation ought to be the primary use unless one is sure they have constructed the sentence properly. This way, we know for sure what is meant.