Deceptively straightforward expression.

[[Mammon]]

I got in a little bit of a discussion with a friend of mine over the nature of this little expression here:

"That was deceptively easy."

Now the point of contention between us was whether, as I claimed, this means that the "that" in the sentence was easier than expected and so the deception was that it made you think it wasn't easy when, really, it was.

My friend, on the other hand, claims that it should mean that it deceived you into thinking it was easy but that it wasn't, that it was hard.

We couldn't come to any kind of rational decision about the actual meaning of the phrase - don't worry, they'll never find his body- but I was just curious about whether or not anyone here knows how this expression really breaks down. If it's taken literally then I think my friend is right; however, I think the common usage tends to agree with my interpretation.

Literal or idiomatic: I leave it up to you. Just remember to choose wisely. Down one path lies fame, fortune, and the esteem of your peers; down the other path lies certain death... or Wallmart. I'm not really sure which, and it certainly does seem that there's a Wallmart everywhere so I don't know why Certain Death would be an exception (I wonder what the hot seller at the Certain Death - Population: n-1 - Wallmart would be... Shovels I'm guessing; lots and lots of shovels).  

[Aubrey Nicole]

I agree with your usage.  

[[ Pyrite ]]

[x]
I mediated on this. No really, I closed my eyes, cupped my chin and thought long and hard in front of my keyboard. I'm with the original poster on this, "deceptively easy" sounds like it would be applied to something done easily; even if it didn't look like it would be at first. That's how I've always used it, anyways.

I must confess I don't know where you would go to look up something like that and check it's proper use.

~Pyrite
[x]  

[The Man who was Thursday]

Literally, indeed, your friend is right. Deceptively is an adverb modifying easy.

In real usage, who knows. Context dictates.

People don't always say what they mean.  

[[Mammon]]

I was thinking about this some more and it seems to me that it could be one of those expressions that used to be formatted correctly but then was altered over time and now, after all those alterations, its meaning in common usage is actually antipodal to its literal meaning.

Unfortunately the only other example that springs to mind when I think of this phenomenon is when people say "I could care less" when what they mean is "I couldn't care less". Because the first phrasing gets misused so often it seems to me that now they are pretty much interchangeable, at least in general conversation.

If it's possible that "deceptively easy" had a different form then I was thinking that it might actually have been something along the lines of "That was easy, but deceptively so". But, then again, I'm not sure if phrasing the expression in this way has the same effect as in "deceptively easy". I don't think it does, but thinking makes my head hurt so I try not to do it too much.

If "that was easy, but deceptively so" does hold the meaning I interpret "deceptively easy" to have then I can see why people would have wished to shorten the first phrase into the second, regardless of whether the resulting construction held true to the original meaning.

....I wonder how the mental process to shorten that phrase would go.

"Well, good chum, that bit of sport was easy, but in a most deceptive way."
*Hmmm, that's a lot to say. I wonder if there's any way I could shorten that.*
*How about just saying "deceptively easy"?*
*That has possibilities. Now we just have to weigh the odds of misinterpretation against the time saved in shortening the phrase; factor in the added time of clarification when the phrase is misinterpreted; modify his by the power of context reinforcing the intended meaning; multiply this by the current phase of the moon; correlate it with the house that the sun was in on the day of my birth; and...*
*SPOINK*
*Yeah, "deceptively easy", that will work.*

(Author's note: The * in the above are used to denote internal dialogue. "SPOINK" is the onomatopoeia commonly used to indicate that something has just broken in someone's brain. Who says it's common? Me, that's who. *Gives you the crazy eye.* You got a problem with that? [Author's note on the Author's note: * can also be used to indicate when the writer takes an action - again: says me. Versatile isn't it.])  

[Gachetemas]

And there's this expression: "to die for." It should mean that something is extremely good, enough that you would die for it, but taken literally, or maybe just differently, could mean, "it will kill you."  

[[Mammon]]

Hmmm. I'm not sure I get how you are pulling the "it will kill you" version out of that expression. From what I understand "to die for" is just an alternate phrasing of "for which I would die" and if that's the case then, it seems to me, the phrase definitely indicates that there's a voluntary choice on the part of the speaker and I'm just not seeing the "it will kill you" connection.

But it might be there and I just don't get it. It wouldn't be the first thing I haven't gotten. In fact I haven't gotten so many things that when one friend asked me how many things I hadn't gotten in my life another friend said, "I bet he hasn't gotten 6.02 times ten to the twenty-third power."

To this the first friend replied, "Oh geeze Avogadro; not everything is 6.02 times ten to the twenty-third power."  

[The Man who was Thursday]

[Mammon]

Hmmm. I'm not sure I get how you are pulling the "it will kill you" version out of that expression. From what I understand "to die for" is just an alternate phrasing of "for which I would die" and if that's the case then, it seems to me, the phrase definitely indicates that there's a voluntary choice on the part of the speaker and I'm just not seeing the "it will kill you" connection.

But it might be there and I just don't get it. It wouldn't be the first thing I haven't gotten. In fact I've forgotten so many things that when one friend asked me how many things I had forgotten in my life another friend said, "I bet he's forgotten 6.02 times ten to the twenty third power."

To this the first friend replied, "Oh geeze Avogadro; not everything is 6.02 times ten to the twenty."

You forgot the word "things" in the sentence.

And hardly anything is equal to Avogadro's number.  

[Xillania]

Ezra Pound

[Mammon]

Hmmm. I'm not sure I get how you are pulling the "it will kill you" version out of that expression. From what I understand "to die for" is just an alternate phrasing of "for which I would die" and if that's the case then, it seems to me, the phrase definitely indicates that there's a voluntary choice on the part of the speaker and I'm just not seeing the "it will kill you" connection.

But it might be there and I just don't get it. It wouldn't be the first thing I haven't gotten. In fact I've forgotten so many things that when one friend asked me how many things I had forgotten in my life another friend said, "I bet he's forgotten 6.02 times ten to the twenty third power."

To this the first friend replied, "Oh geeze Avogadro; not everything is 6.02 times ten to the twenty."

You forgot the word "things" in the sentence.

And hardly anything is equal to Avogadro's number.

You also forgot "third", and I wouldn't be surprised if Avogrado was obsessed, with a number like that. It's how some people are with 42.

I think the "it will kill you" meaning could have been derived from the "to die for" euphamism common to supervillains who mean that they're going to kill somebody, or else that something is certain death.

"Have you seen Heaven? It's to die for."  

[Gachetemas]

It goes hand in glove with "I would love to have you for dinner." To some, this is a nice invitation, but to others a warning that someone wishes to consume one's flesh for dinner. You have to decide what it means in context.

I didn't mean that some people interperet "to die for" as "it will literally kill you." They might be trying to say "it's horrible," but most people think to be "to die for" is a compliment.  

[[Mammon]]

Xillania

You also forgot "third", and I wouldn't be surprised if Avogrado was obsessed, with a number like that.

Indeed I did, and I've edited it now to correct my mistake. I guess in my excitement to make my Avogadro's number joke I got a little carried away and started dropping packets.

Xillania

I think the "it will kill you" meaning could have been derived from the "to die for" euphemism common to supervillains who mean that they're going to kill somebody, or else that something is certain death.

Ah, that helps a lot. Thanks, Xillania; I like this interpretation.

Xillania

It's how some people are with 42.

Well, 42 is the answer to life, the universe and everything.

Ezra Pound

You forgot the word "things" in the sentence.

Did I?

I'm assuming you mean in this sentence:

Mammon

"I bet he hasn't gotten 6.02 times ten to the twenty third power."

I suppose I was thinking that if friend number one had said, "Mammon, just how many things haven't you gotten in your life?" and Avogadro responded, "I bet he hasn't gotten 6.02 times ten to the twenty third power." then a "things" wouldn't really be necessary. Isn't the missing "things" understood from the phrasing of the question (which I'll admit I took as understood from the rest of the context and so any failure there would be bad writing and not a grammatical error)? Am I even in the right sentence or were you referring to something else?

Mammon

But it might be there and I just don't get it. It wouldn't be the first thing I haven't gotten. In fact I've forgotten so many things that when one friend asked me how many things I had forgotten in my life another friend said, "I bet he's forgotten 6.02 times ten to the twenty-third power."

Mammon, you idiot; you went from talking about things you haven't gotten to talking about things you've forgotten. Learn how to write, or at least how to proofread, moron.

Hah, I found the biggest mistake. I win!  

[[Mammon]]

[Mammon]

Mammon, you idiot; you went from talking about things you haven't gotten to talking about things you've forgotten. Learn how to write, or at least how to proofread, moron.

Hah, I found the biggest mistake. I win!

But now I've edited it and it's like it never happened.

Who's the idiot now, Mammon?  

[[Mammon]]

[Mammon]

Who's the idiot now, Mammon?

Still you, I think.  

[[ Pyrite ]]

[x]
I congratulate Mammon, who seems to know that if you mock your life it doesn't mock you. Er, well, mock your posts as the case may be - but you get the idea.

~Pyrite
[x]  

[splashseal]

I still think you are correct in your interpretation. "Deceptively" is modifying "easy", but I think that it is more correct to still read it as you have, that the "that" was easy, but not outwardly so.