Episode #125 of the Stack Overflow podcast is here. We talk Tilde Club and mechanical keyboards. Listen now
4 expand the first sentence, since the OP seems to be confused by it somehow
source | link

I would argue for no: mislead doesn't imply intent, though it's certainly compatible with it.

When I tell someone "Sorry if I misled you", I'm not admitting an act of deception; I'm saying that I said something that may have given them a misunderstanding.

When we say "unintentionally misled" or "accidentally misled", this is not a contradiction in terms; it merely means that someone unintentionally led someone else to misunderstand something. "Intentionally misled", likewise, is not redundant.

When we speak of a "misleading example", the example obviously has no intent, but furthermore, the person who gave the example usually had no intent to deceive, either. (But sometimes they did. I recommend looking through the Google Books hits for this one; in most cases it's clear that it was unintentional, but in some cases it can be read as intentional or at least suspicious.)


Edited to add: In a comment to this answer, lbf points out that all of these examples have context. This was obviously intentional on my part — the context is what provides evidence of how it's meant to be understood — but it's a fair point that sometimes a word or phrase ordinarily suggests something narrower than it necessarily requires, such that context can completely change what's being suggested; for example, if I say "We lost the game", you'll assume it was unintentional (to the point that "We unintentionally lost the game" will usually sound odd), but "We intentionally lost the game" is not a contradiction. Conversely, if I say "I turned the machine on", you'll assume it was intentional (to the point that "I intentionally turned the machine on" will usually sound odd), but "I accidentally turned the machine on" is not a contradiction.

I think that, barring such context, mislead can really go either way; the results of a Google Books Search for "mislead investigators", for example, seem to be pretty evenly split between cases of seeming intentional deception and cases where such an interpretation is not possible. Neither "intentionally misled" nor "unintentionally misled" sounds odd.

In your example, "I feel misled", I would expect that the speaker has chosen this phrasing specifically so as to avoid suggesting that it was necessarily intentional; otherwise he would more likely say "I feel lied to", or at least "I feel that you misled me." But that doesn't mean that the speaker doesn't think it was intentional — merely that he's decided not to phrase his statement in a way that too strongly suggests that it was.

I would argue for no.

When I tell someone "Sorry if I misled you", I'm not admitting an act of deception; I'm saying that I said something that may have given them a misunderstanding.

When we say "unintentionally misled" or "accidentally misled", this is not a contradiction in terms; it merely means that someone unintentionally led someone else to misunderstand something. "Intentionally misled", likewise, is not redundant.

When we speak of a "misleading example", the example obviously has no intent, but furthermore, the person who gave the example usually had no intent to deceive, either. (But sometimes they did. I recommend looking through the Google Books hits for this one; in most cases it's clear that it was unintentional, but in some cases it can be read as intentional or at least suspicious.)


Edited to add: In a comment to this answer, lbf points out that all of these examples have context. This was obviously intentional on my part — the context is what provides evidence of how it's meant to be understood — but it's a fair point that sometimes a word or phrase ordinarily suggests something narrower than it necessarily requires, such that context can completely change what's being suggested; for example, if I say "We lost the game", you'll assume it was unintentional (to the point that "We unintentionally lost the game" will usually sound odd), but "We intentionally lost the game" is not a contradiction. Conversely, if I say "I turned the machine on", you'll assume it was intentional (to the point that "I intentionally turned the machine on" will usually sound odd), but "I accidentally turned the machine on" is not a contradiction.

I think that, barring such context, mislead can really go either way; the results of a Google Books Search for "mislead investigators", for example, seem to be pretty evenly split between cases of seeming intentional deception and cases where such an interpretation is not possible. Neither "intentionally misled" nor "unintentionally misled" sounds odd.

In your example, "I feel misled", I would expect that the speaker has chosen this phrasing specifically so as to avoid suggesting that it was necessarily intentional; otherwise he would more likely say "I feel lied to", or at least "I feel that you misled me." But that doesn't mean that the speaker doesn't think it was intentional — merely that he's decided not to phrase his statement in a way that too strongly suggests that it was.

I would argue for no: mislead doesn't imply intent, though it's certainly compatible with it.

When I tell someone "Sorry if I misled you", I'm not admitting an act of deception; I'm saying that I said something that may have given them a misunderstanding.

When we say "unintentionally misled" or "accidentally misled", this is not a contradiction in terms; it merely means that someone unintentionally led someone else to misunderstand something. "Intentionally misled", likewise, is not redundant.

When we speak of a "misleading example", the example obviously has no intent, but furthermore, the person who gave the example usually had no intent to deceive, either. (But sometimes they did. I recommend looking through the Google Books hits for this one; in most cases it's clear that it was unintentional, but in some cases it can be read as intentional or at least suspicious.)


Edited to add: In a comment to this answer, lbf points out that all of these examples have context. This was obviously intentional on my part — the context is what provides evidence of how it's meant to be understood — but it's a fair point that sometimes a word or phrase ordinarily suggests something narrower than it necessarily requires, such that context can completely change what's being suggested; for example, if I say "We lost the game", you'll assume it was unintentional (to the point that "We unintentionally lost the game" will usually sound odd), but "We intentionally lost the game" is not a contradiction. Conversely, if I say "I turned the machine on", you'll assume it was intentional (to the point that "I intentionally turned the machine on" will usually sound odd), but "I accidentally turned the machine on" is not a contradiction.

I think that, barring such context, mislead can really go either way; the results of a Google Books Search for "mislead investigators", for example, seem to be pretty evenly split between cases of seeming intentional deception and cases where such an interpretation is not possible. Neither "intentionally misled" nor "unintentionally misled" sounds odd.

In your example, "I feel misled", I would expect that the speaker has chosen this phrasing specifically so as to avoid suggesting that it was necessarily intentional; otherwise he would more likely say "I feel lied to", or at least "I feel that you misled me." But that doesn't mean that the speaker doesn't think it was intentional — merely that he's decided not to phrase his statement in a way that too strongly suggests that it was.

3 fix typo
source | link

I would argue for no.

When I tell someone "Sorry if I misled you", I'm not admitting an act of deception; I'm saying that I said something that may have given them a misunderstanding.

When we say "unintentionally misled" or "accidentally misled", this is not a contradiction in terms; it merely means that someone unintentionally led someone else to misunderstand something. "Intentionally misled", likewise, is not redundant.

When we speak of a "misleading example", the example obviously has no intent, but furthermore, the person who gave the example usually had no intent to deceive, either. (But sometimes they did. I recommend looking through the Google Books hits for this one; in most cases it's clear that it was unintentional, but in some cases it can be read as intentional or at least suspicious.)


Edited to add: In a comment to this answer, lbf points out that all of these examples have context. This was obviously intentional inon my part — the context is what provides evidence of how it's meant to be understood — but it's a fair point that sometimes a word or phrase ordinarily suggests something narrower than it necessarily requires, such that context can completely change what's being suggested; for example, if I say "We lost the game", you'll assume it was unintentional (to the point that "We unintentionally lost the game" will usually sound odd), but "We intentionally lost the game" is not a contradiction. Conversely, if I say "I turned the machine on", you'll assume it was intentional (to the point that "I intentionally turned the machine on" will usually sound odd), but "I accidentally turned the machine on" is not a contradiction.

I think that, barring such context, mislead can really go either way; the results of a Google Books Search for "mislead investigators", for example, seem to be pretty evenly split between cases of seeming intentional deception and cases where such an interpretation is not possible. Neither "intentionally misled" nor "unintentionally misled" sounds odd.

In your example, "I feel misled", I would expect that the speaker has chosen this phrasing specifically so as to avoid suggesting that it was necessarily intentional; otherwise he would more likely say "I feel lied to", or at least "I feel that you misled me." But that doesn't mean that the speaker doesn't think it was intentional — merely that he's decided not to phrase his statement in a way that too strongly suggests that it was.

I would argue for no.

When I tell someone "Sorry if I misled you", I'm not admitting an act of deception; I'm saying that I said something that may have given them a misunderstanding.

When we say "unintentionally misled" or "accidentally misled", this is not a contradiction in terms; it merely means that someone unintentionally led someone else to misunderstand something. "Intentionally misled", likewise, is not redundant.

When we speak of a "misleading example", the example obviously has no intent, but furthermore, the person who gave the example usually had no intent to deceive, either. (But sometimes they did. I recommend looking through the Google Books hits for this one; in most cases it's clear that it was unintentional, but in some cases it can be read as intentional or at least suspicious.)


Edited to add: In a comment to this answer, lbf points out that all of these examples have context. This was obviously intentional in my part — the context is what provides evidence of how it's meant to be understood — but it's a fair point that sometimes a word or phrase ordinarily suggests something narrower than it necessarily requires, such that context can completely change what's being suggested; for example, if I say "We lost the game", you'll assume it was unintentional (to the point that "We unintentionally lost the game" will usually sound odd), but "We intentionally lost the game" is not a contradiction. Conversely, if I say "I turned the machine on", you'll assume it was intentional (to the point that "I intentionally turned the machine on" will usually sound odd), but "I accidentally turned the machine on" is not a contradiction.

I think that, barring such context, mislead can really go either way; the results of a Google Books Search for "mislead investigators", for example, seem to be pretty evenly split between cases of seeming intentional deception and cases where such an interpretation is not possible. Neither "intentionally misled" nor "unintentionally misled" sounds odd.

In your example, "I feel misled", I would expect that the speaker has chosen this phrasing specifically so as to avoid suggesting that it was necessarily intentional; otherwise he would more likely say "I feel lied to", or at least "I feel that you misled me." But that doesn't mean that the speaker doesn't think it was intentional — merely that he's decided not to phrase his statement in a way that too strongly suggests that it was.

I would argue for no.

When I tell someone "Sorry if I misled you", I'm not admitting an act of deception; I'm saying that I said something that may have given them a misunderstanding.

When we say "unintentionally misled" or "accidentally misled", this is not a contradiction in terms; it merely means that someone unintentionally led someone else to misunderstand something. "Intentionally misled", likewise, is not redundant.

When we speak of a "misleading example", the example obviously has no intent, but furthermore, the person who gave the example usually had no intent to deceive, either. (But sometimes they did. I recommend looking through the Google Books hits for this one; in most cases it's clear that it was unintentional, but in some cases it can be read as intentional or at least suspicious.)


Edited to add: In a comment to this answer, lbf points out that all of these examples have context. This was obviously intentional on my part — the context is what provides evidence of how it's meant to be understood — but it's a fair point that sometimes a word or phrase ordinarily suggests something narrower than it necessarily requires, such that context can completely change what's being suggested; for example, if I say "We lost the game", you'll assume it was unintentional (to the point that "We unintentionally lost the game" will usually sound odd), but "We intentionally lost the game" is not a contradiction. Conversely, if I say "I turned the machine on", you'll assume it was intentional (to the point that "I intentionally turned the machine on" will usually sound odd), but "I accidentally turned the machine on" is not a contradiction.

I think that, barring such context, mislead can really go either way; the results of a Google Books Search for "mislead investigators", for example, seem to be pretty evenly split between cases of seeming intentional deception and cases where such an interpretation is not possible. Neither "intentionally misled" nor "unintentionally misled" sounds odd.

In your example, "I feel misled", I would expect that the speaker has chosen this phrasing specifically so as to avoid suggesting that it was necessarily intentional; otherwise he would more likely say "I feel lied to", or at least "I feel that you misled me." But that doesn't mean that the speaker doesn't think it was intentional — merely that he's decided not to phrase his statement in a way that too strongly suggests that it was.

2 +add a section addressing lbf's comment about context
source | link

I would argue for no.

When I tell someone "Sorry if I misled you", I'm not admitting an act of deception; I'm saying that I said something that may have given them a misunderstanding.

When we say "unintentionally misled" or "accidentally misled", this is not a contradiction in terms; it merely means that someone unintentionally led someone else to misunderstand something. "Intentionally misled", likewise, is not redundant.

When we speak of a "misleading example", the example obviously has no intent, but furthermore, the person who gave the example usually had no intent to deceive, either. (But sometimes they did. I recommend looking through the Google Books hits for this one; in most cases it's clear that it was unintentional, but in some cases it can be read as intentional or at least suspicious.)


Edited to add: In a comment to this answer, lbf points out that all of these examples have context. This was obviously intentional in my part — the context is what provides evidence of how it's meant to be understood — but it's a fair point that sometimes a word or phrase ordinarily suggests something narrower than it necessarily requires, such that context can completely change what's being suggested; for example, if I say "We lost the game", you'll assume it was unintentional (to the point that "We unintentionally lost the game" will usually sound odd), but "We intentionally lost the game" is not a contradiction. Conversely, if I say "I turned the machine on", you'll assume it was intentional (to the point that "I intentionally turned the machine on" will usually sound odd), but "I accidentally turned the machine on" is not a contradiction.

I think that, barring such context, mislead can really go either way; the results of a Google Books Search for "mislead investigators", for example, seem to be pretty evenly split between cases of seeming intentional deception and cases where such an interpretation is not possible. Neither "intentionally misled" nor "unintentionally misled" sounds odd.

In your example, "I feel misled", I would expect that the speaker has chosen this phrasing specifically so as to avoid suggesting that it was necessarily intentional; otherwise he would more likely say "I feel lied to", or at least "I feel that you misled me." But that doesn't mean that the speaker doesn't think it was intentional — merely that he's decided not to phrase his statement in a way that too strongly suggests that it was.

I would argue for no.

When I tell someone "Sorry if I misled you", I'm not admitting an act of deception; I'm saying that I said something that may have given them a misunderstanding.

When we say "unintentionally misled" or "accidentally misled", this is not a contradiction in terms; it merely means that someone unintentionally led someone else to misunderstand something. "Intentionally misled", likewise, is not redundant.

When we speak of a "misleading example", the example obviously has no intent, but furthermore, the person who gave the example usually had no intent to deceive, either. (But sometimes they did. I recommend looking through the Google Books hits for this one; in most cases it's clear that it was unintentional, but in some cases it can be read as intentional or at least suspicious.)

I would argue for no.

When I tell someone "Sorry if I misled you", I'm not admitting an act of deception; I'm saying that I said something that may have given them a misunderstanding.

When we say "unintentionally misled" or "accidentally misled", this is not a contradiction in terms; it merely means that someone unintentionally led someone else to misunderstand something. "Intentionally misled", likewise, is not redundant.

When we speak of a "misleading example", the example obviously has no intent, but furthermore, the person who gave the example usually had no intent to deceive, either. (But sometimes they did. I recommend looking through the Google Books hits for this one; in most cases it's clear that it was unintentional, but in some cases it can be read as intentional or at least suspicious.)


Edited to add: In a comment to this answer, lbf points out that all of these examples have context. This was obviously intentional in my part — the context is what provides evidence of how it's meant to be understood — but it's a fair point that sometimes a word or phrase ordinarily suggests something narrower than it necessarily requires, such that context can completely change what's being suggested; for example, if I say "We lost the game", you'll assume it was unintentional (to the point that "We unintentionally lost the game" will usually sound odd), but "We intentionally lost the game" is not a contradiction. Conversely, if I say "I turned the machine on", you'll assume it was intentional (to the point that "I intentionally turned the machine on" will usually sound odd), but "I accidentally turned the machine on" is not a contradiction.

I think that, barring such context, mislead can really go either way; the results of a Google Books Search for "mislead investigators", for example, seem to be pretty evenly split between cases of seeming intentional deception and cases where such an interpretation is not possible. Neither "intentionally misled" nor "unintentionally misled" sounds odd.

In your example, "I feel misled", I would expect that the speaker has chosen this phrasing specifically so as to avoid suggesting that it was necessarily intentional; otherwise he would more likely say "I feel lied to", or at least "I feel that you misled me." But that doesn't mean that the speaker doesn't think it was intentional — merely that he's decided not to phrase his statement in a way that too strongly suggests that it was.

1
source | link