Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Falling short: The ambiguity of ‘needs to be'. Jan Freeman writes in the Boston Globe: «NPR's Ari Shapiro, commenting on Sotomayer's opening remarks, said, “I don't think she went out on a limb {hellip} The statement was much shorter than it needed to be.†Did he mean that the statement should have been longer, or just that it could have been longer? I had never noticed this potential ambiguity in “need to be,†but it was real: I had to listen to several more sentences before I concluded that the second meaning was the intended one. »
This is interesting news to me. While I don't dispute the assertions, they surprise me.
My reading of "more ... than it needs to be" would be that unless it was very clearly a positive statement, in which case it would be somewhat ironic, it would be a criticism. So using a neutral adjective in that position would still carry an implication of the judgement of the speaker that the situation was bad.
I will have to look and listen for this new use.
After further reflection, I believe I would express the positive or neutral sentiment as †… more than x enough … †and reserve the “more x than it needs to be†for a critical statement. As I mentioned above, it could also be used ironically or for comic effect.
Clearly, the positive references to the comedy film and to the burger are attention-getting and tongue-in-cheek. In fact, their interest relies on the odd use of this formula.
Does anyone else think that “The statement was much shorter than it needed to be.†is potentially a criticism -- espeically with the word "much"? Perhaps it was intended to be less confrontational than “The statement should have been longer.†This whole article seems to hinge on one judgment that the intent here was neutral.
Again, I will listen to see if this potential shift sticks like †… could care less …â€, fades after a flash, or proves to be more obscure than it needs to be.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)