"send the wrong message"

[Jonathan Lighter]

Yes, and "covert" might be added as well. Cf. recent "dog whistle."
Was somebody "sending a message" intended covertly for only a few?

JL


On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> Subject:      Re: "send the wrong message"
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> At 10/15/2011 09:40 AM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>>Note especially that the "signal" or "message" in recent use is often
>>merely a byproduct. Often it involves an unintended, even subliminal,
>>quasi-Pavlovian interpretation:
>>
>>"Too many of today's films send a message to kids that ultraviolence is fun."
>>
>>Of course, an earlier generation would simply have used "tell." But
>>given the choice (which seems barely to have existed forty-odd years
>>ago), "tell" seems to me to imply something more apparent to any
>>ordinary observer, whereas "send a message" implies something more
>>oblique and perhaps less conscious.
>>
>>Or is it a distinction with no more than a stylistic difference?
>
> There is a distinction to me.  "Tell" suggests something overt,
> deliberate, while "send a message" (in these kinds of contexts)
> suggests the possibility that the received meaning was not
> consciously intended.
>
> Joel
>
>
>>JL
>>
>>On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Victor Steinbok <aardvark66 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>> -----------------------
>> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> > Poster:       Victor Steinbok <aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM>
>> > Subject:      Re: "send the wrong message"
>> >
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Oh, it's simplified enough--I just lack the antennae for reception. The
>> > eyes say "yes" but the nose says "no".
>> >
>> >     VS-)
>> >
>> > On 10/14/2011 9:14 PM, Joel S. Berson wrote:
>> >> At 10/14/2011 09:07 PM, Victor Steinbok wrote:
>> >>> OK, let me simplify it further--"receiving mixed signals" means being
>> >>> unsure of intent, irrespectively of whether any actual indications,
>> >>> tokens, facts, qualities, signs or symbols have been actually
>> >>> transmitted. "Sending mixed signals" means that someone is "receiving
>> >>> mixed signals" in that same sense. No signals--strictly a metaphor!
>> >> If the recipient is unsure of *intent*, some information must have
>> >> been received.  That is the "signals".  Is that simplified enough for you?
>> >>
>> >> Joel
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>



--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org