On the use of overtly

Question

I need help settling a debate over the way in which I used the word 'overtly' today. A friend and I have been going back and forth over it so I figure let's get a third (or fourth) opinion on it.

Today I said, "I would not be overtly surprised if she was forced to do it". While I understand that the normal/common phrase that people are familiar with would be "I would not be overly surprised...", that is not what I was going for.

Admittedly I didn't know the full meaning of the word, which is "without concealment or secrecy; openly.", however, I feel that it is okay to use 'overtly' in this way as not only is it grammatically correct, but it also makes sense semantically. My interpenetration of it after learning the meaning is along the lines of "I would be openly surprised..." as the word surprise does not necessarily mean that it is obvious when someone is surprised.

The foundation of my friends counter-argument is that the use of the word 'overtly' is redundant as 'surprise' would mean that it was already obvious and without concealment.

Granted, this is a silly thing to argue about, but it does have me wondering.

Answer 1

I'd say that overtly is a malapropism as you're using it. The idiomatic way to say that surprise would not be written all over your face is:

I would show no surprise if she was forced to do it.

But that doesn't make much sense, does it? What weird situation would put the look on your face at the center of a situation where someone was being forced to do something?

This isn't to say that overtly couldn't be used in that manner, just that the context you've supplied doesn't really support it. If you say it does, fine, but you're expecting the person you're speaking with to read your mind because the utterance alone doesn't express anything that would justify that meaning.

When meeting with them, be sure to act overtly surprised when they tell you about their plans to sell off that subsidiary. We wouldn't want them to know we have a mole in their C-suite.

But even there overtly is not needed. It is otiose. "act surprised" is the idiomatic phrase, and everyone understands it to mean that the person is evincing surprise, showing it on their facial expression, in their body language, in how they respond vocally, whatever.

Answer 2

This appears to be a malapropism for "I would not be overly surprised." Drop the t.

Answer 3

"I'm trying to convey that I would be able to hide my surprise fairly easily," could be described as being covertly surprised.

Answer 4

I feel that it is okay to use 'overtly' in this way as not only is it grammatically correct, but it also makes sense semantically.

What you seem to have meant is that you would not show surprise, though you might nevertheless feel it. Your wording indeed is grammatically correct and indeed does mean that. Nevertheless, you should not use that wording because

1. There is a high risk of your audience assuming that you have used the wrong word -- "overtly" when you meant "overly" -- because "overly surprised" is fairly common, whereas "overtly surprised" is very uncommon, at best. Personally, I would speak in terms of "showing" surprise, as I did above, to avoid the risk of such a misinterpretation.

2. The nature of surprise is that you might not actually be able to control your immediate reaction. If you can predict with confidence that you would not show surprise under certain circumstances, then it seems like you are saying that you would not be surprised under those circumstances in the first place. If that's what you mean, then you should say it directly.

Perhaps (2) is what your friend was going for, but it's not what you described their position to be. Surprise is often accompanied by a visible reaction, but it is not the reaction itself. You can definitely be surprised without showing it.