I agree, but here the “completely different” meaning would be in complete contradiction to the actual statement. There is a difference between “Wait a minute” when one means “wait 47 seconds” and “tell no one” when one means “tell people.”
In one case, the expression is merely an exaggeration. In the other, it specifies an absolute state that cannot involve any exceptions. Those are very different.
Do you also believe that if I say, very obviously sarcastically, that I would
love to spend all day in, say, jury duty, I need to make sure to explain that I don’t
really mean that I would love to spend all day in Jury, but in fact I mean not only something contradictory to the literal words that I am saying, but the exact opposite of them? It doesn’t matter what the actual literal words are, what matters is the expected understanding that they are conveying. If they have no reason to think their meaning would be misunderstood then they have no reason to clarify what they mean and in fact if they tried to do so more than a couple of times they would probably be asked to stop.
It is inconsiderate to assume that someone means something other than that without clarifying. “Tell no one” means “tell no one.” You can attempt to interpret it however you want, but it still means what it means at face value. In this case, it is negligent because someone could actually care about who knows, which should be obvious given the previous request for silence.
Do you also believe it is inconsiderate to not explain each time you say something sarcastically that you actuallly mean something contrary to the literal meaning of the words?
Again, I am not denying the possibility of contextual inflections. If some phrase means something special to a group of persons, fine. They know what it means.
And yet it would be ridiculous to deny that the interpretation of “tell no one” as…“tell no one” is privileged over the interpretation of “tell no one” as “you can tell people.”
I am saying that there is a natural default that needs to be acknowledged; a rejection of it constitutes negligence and lack of consideration.
Neither one is priviledged as such. If a person has been led to believe that a particular combination of sounds, such as “don’t tell anyone”, or “don’t spread this around” etc means don’t tell anyone except your spouse and has never been given any indication by
anyone they have talked to, used this phrase with, or heard use this phrase that it might ever even
possibly have another meaning then why in the world would it be wrong for them to not go out of their way to explain what the phrase means each time they say it?
Look, the problem here is that since you are coming at this from one set perspective you are having a really hard time seeing how anybody could ever not see it from your perspective, and so you are assuming that those who do not see it from your perspective are always being inconsiderate. That just simply is not true.
