Raz
Bluelighter
I think I probably use them kind of interchangeably...saying "I could care less" seems more spiteful to me for some reason. Mebbe I'm just crazy in the coconut... 
-
✍️ WORDS ✍️
Welcome Guest!
-
-
Words Moderators: Shambles
Discussion: Could/Couldn't Care Less
- Thread starter physix
- Start date
SmC
Ex-Bluelighter
I don't get why all Americans can't just use the language normally and just say 'couldn't careless'. Saying that you could careless really means that you could careless...when infact they're trying to mean that they couldn't careless. Its fucked and its always annoyed me, another thing that annoys me is the use of the word 'except' for the word 'accept'. I've noticed Americans do this a lot to. Maybe they should check something called a dictionary?
physix
Bluelight Crew
i guess americans are the only ones to misspell stuff.
good to know.
well, it's rather like these two sentences:
Jimmy plays with an alligator... Jimmy gets bit by the alligator... you gleefully yell out:
[-] that'll teach you to play with alligators!!!
or
[-] that'll teach you not to play with alligators!!!
they both 'mean' the same thing in spoken language don't they?
(now that i think about it, that idiom might be american, too)
i just think it's a bit much to get up in arms about idiomatic speech, ESPECIALLY from countries (Australia, Great Britain, US) that come up with new sets of idiomatic speech at least every generation.
it took me an age to learn what nowt, owt, innit, kin, and "bob's your uncle" meant.
i kept thinking "how the fuck do they know my uncle's name is robert!!"
but, along your lines, i think when people who use "could" hear the "couldn't" version, i think they have a tendency to switch to the more logical one. they may revert back to their old way in the 'heat of the moment' or summat...
i think because it might have been originally made that way... sort of a comedic one-two punch.
your buddy says: i couldn't care less.
and you say: well, I could care less (meaning, you can even MORE less (heh) than your buddy does).
that does sound more... spiteful in a way, i guess. so, yeah, i see your point.
good to know.
cuddly.kittie.too said:
well, it's rather like these two sentences:
Jimmy plays with an alligator... Jimmy gets bit by the alligator... you gleefully yell out:
[-] that'll teach you to play with alligators!!!
or
[-] that'll teach you not to play with alligators!!!
they both 'mean' the same thing in spoken language don't they?
(now that i think about it, that idiom might be american, too)
i just think it's a bit much to get up in arms about idiomatic speech, ESPECIALLY from countries (Australia, Great Britain, US) that come up with new sets of idiomatic speech at least every generation.
it took me an age to learn what nowt, owt, innit, kin, and "bob's your uncle" meant.
i kept thinking "how the fuck do they know my uncle's name is robert!!"
but, along your lines, i think when people who use "could" hear the "couldn't" version, i think they have a tendency to switch to the more logical one. they may revert back to their old way in the 'heat of the moment' or summat...
Raz said:I think I probably use them kind of interchangeably...saying "I could care less" seems more spiteful to me for some reason. Mebbe I'm just crazy in the coconut...
i think because it might have been originally made that way... sort of a comedic one-two punch.
your buddy says: i couldn't care less.
and you say: well, I could care less (meaning, you can even MORE less (heh) than your buddy does).
that does sound more... spiteful in a way, i guess. so, yeah, i see your point.
Last edited:
cuddly.kittie.too
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 235
Eh, I'm coming around to what you're saying (Only ever so slightly, mind - I'm stubborn) in the sense that it is possible to make sense out of the 'nonsensical' version if you try hard enough. 'I could care less' could, I guess, be seen to be more apathetic than 'I couldn't care less' in the sense that while it might be possible to care just a little bit less, the person is so disinterested that they're not even going to bother to make that effort.
I still will always say 'I couldn't care less'.
I still will always say 'I couldn't care less'.
Last edited:
psood0nym
Bluelighter
cuddly.kittie.too said:
Hmm, I don’t know. Wouldn’t it need to somehow imply “I could care less, but I don’t care to do even that”? Standing alone I don’t see it. I don’t even think “I could care less” should count as an idiom, but rather as a stock phrase (“I couldn’t care less”) that’s degraded into vagueness. The implied argument forwarded by physix for its inclusion for the purposes of giving the language more spirit is worth noting, but in my opinion the statement simply isn’t that colorful. “Straight from the horse’s mouth” is a colorful, evocative idiom that is worth keeping around for these reasons. Simply dropping “n’t” from an already overworked expression does not give it enough soul to warrant a further redundancy to the expressional lexicon of the English language, whether the expression is established or not. It’s like the way “disinterested” and “uninterested” can mean the same thing but probably shouldn’t (not to "split hairs" cuddly.kittie.too (insert smiley winking thing))
physix
Bluelight Crew
you bring up some good points, especially when referring the color of a phrase. i was just looking at a german idiom:
Hast du 'ne Meise?
lit. 'have you a titmouse'
equivalent to English: 'are you crazy?'
it has everything i was referring to (drops, history) and it has something you brought up: colour. (how does titmouse (a small bird) equate to crazy?)
a couple points you mentioned however:
well... that's what i'm saying... but, as most idioms do, things drop off. 'i could care less' becomes a trigger for the understanding of the entire phrase or its meaning (in case you don't know the phrase literally). so, there's no need to say it.
"hear, hear" is an example of a legal idiom. it started off as a longer phrase. things were dropped off for whatever reason, but the "hear, hear" is a trigger to the whole phrase. and, it doesn't matter if, centuries down the road, no one knows the original phrase, because 'hear, hear' TRIGGERS the understanding of the speakers' intentions through context and history. people know how to say it, when to say it, why to say it... even without knowing what it means, where it came from, why it's just two words... that's an example of an idiomatic drop, not merely a contraction.
IF -- and i'm still saying 'if' -- the phrase "could care less" came from a 1 2 punch of someone saying "couldn't care less" then the other person saying "well, you might not can, but i could care less", then it's NOT a mere contraction, it's the drop of an entire portion of the phrase. yet, the TRIGGER -- the punchline, if you will -- is still there.
in fact, i want to say there are examples of PUNCHLINES becoming idiomatic in nature, whereby i can say just the punchline and, if it fits with what's happening, the intention is understood (regardless of if everyone knows the whole joke)... but i can't think of anything yet.
if you look at the history of the phrase 'to the nines', you can see this evolution at BOTH ends, actually: adding on to the phrase, then truncating it.
"to the nines" may have come from Sir John Mandeville's Voyages de Jehan de Mandeville chevalier, in the 14th century:
"Sir king! ye shall have war without peace, and always to the nine degree, ye shall be in subjection of your enemies, and ye shall be needy of all goods."
but it may have been added in translation in the 18th century, where it was popping up in English print and slang to mean either "completely" or "absolutely; with perfection" or something of the sort.
alittle later, it becomes "dressed up to the nines", then later still just 'dressed to the nines' and is specifically used to refer solely to one's dress.
there we have an addition and a truncation within the same century.
centuries later, as people become more and more comfortable with 'dressed to the nines', the word 'dressed' can be dropped and more people use it to refer to ANYTHING that was done 'completely and/or with utter perfection'.
Prince -> love, 2 the 9s [sic]
Oh, that club was fierce! it was done-up [decorated] to the nines!
now, for the most part, after being added to and subtracted from, now it's back to its original form with its original intent.
now, we can debate the color of the phrase, but i'd argue it not TOO terribly colorful. but it is an idiom.
we're not supposed, i don't think, not 'all the time... they're not meant to stand alone.
also, where are you from? an idiom is defined, in part, as a specialized language or a distinctive pattern in the usage of the language and the way that language is used in a given region.
so "could care less" may simply not be used where you're from. as such, it won't make sense. THAT'S why i said i didn't think LOGIC should come into play in idioms.
if 'could care less' was vague, i'd agree. it's not. it's understood.
now, if it were written correspondence, one could claim ambiguity if no other context was given; but in spoken communication, the sentence's meaning is clear.
in fact, it's SO understood that, even in a form most view as grammatically and/or logically incorrect, the meaning is clear. no matter where you are -- which you use -- if you hear it (not just see it) but hear it, there'd be no mistaking it's meaning. people on here say stuff like 'oh, it must mean that you DO care, alittle'... and they're not saying that because they honestly think that's what it means.
if you're in an argument and someone says:
'i could care less if i go to jail, i'm gonna fuckin' snap your twig bitch neck!'
you would know that they are not saying that they DO care alittle about going to jail. of course, you're not analyzing the person's grammar if things have progressed to THAT level, but you get the gist.
oh, 'gist' is another good example! it comes from a much longer phrase:
This is the gist, this is the heart of the matter, or this is the central focus.
but who wants to say all THAT??!?!?
hands?
actually, that is reason enough, as far as linguists are concern, at least. we may not like it, because a lot of shit out there need never be said again. but once it's used to the frequency we see this being used, then it's there... and until people are re-trained to never say it the other way... ~shrug~
in fact, if we must banish 'could care less' because its illogical and grammatically illegal, then why not ban the idiom: music soothes the savage beast, which is an OBVIOUS misquote.
"Play it again, Sam"
another misquote.
Why not get those, as well? Aside from the fact that it would be nigh impossible to find all examples of misquoted phrases that have become to commonplace as to become idiomatic, most people, pardon the pun, couldn't care less.
and i bet you some of those people who 'couldn't care less' about those two idioms are people who vehemently oppose 'could care less' on the same reasons they SHOULD be opposing 'music soothes the savage beast'.
(wait... i think i just lost myself on that one)
well, i think i see your point there, but in the case of 'disinterested' and 'uninterested', those are two distinct words with two distinct meanings. those two words have a rather controversial history (both meaning one thing, then switching, then one dropping out of favour, then returning). and, if you use it in informal speech, no one will correct you... but in academia or research or other 'high-end' literature, the two words mean two different things.
i think a better example might be the whole 'regardless'/'irregardless' fiasco. similar to how 'disinterested' has been misused so much that it's become 'okay' to misuse it, even by some English professors and scholars, 'irregardless' has wormed its way into public speaking in some circles and it rarely makes one think twice about its meaning (something to do with throwing a "bad" suffix on a "negative" (meaning: bad) word or some such).
in fact, it'll be interesting to see how irregardless plays out ... there's enough people using it deliberately in a sarcastic and mocking way that, when the sarcasm is lost over time, it might lose that flavour. but in spoken language, in 20 years, the intent of 'irregardless' may turn into merely a synonym for regardless except only in spoken/informal language, devoid of any sarcastic undertone. it'll be exactly what i think happened to the US "care less".
note. i use the word 'interesting' loosely, because really... who's interested? who's waiting with bated breath?)
another good example is the whole 'bold-face lie' vs 'bald-faced lie' fiasco (either one can be proven to make sense by definition, but people say one or the other, rarely both).
the other one is 'just deserts', where you say "desserts" and it makes sense... it feels right... and like me, you probably have this image of someoen SO greedy that they ate all the food at dinner and began stuffing their face with cake and desserts and then started choking and then died.
"just desserts".
it's colorful.
makes sense.
makes perfect sense, in fact.
until you find that definition of 'desert' that NO ONE USES any more which refers to 'a just and deserving punishment for an often-illegal activity'. but i don't think people are corrected at all when they use 'dessert'. in fact, i don't think, we quoted, the [sic] tag appears against it to notify that the person who was quoted used the wrong phrase.
in fact, this goes against the believed requirement that idioms must be colourful. this idiom is literal. in fact, you could possibly use it without fuss in a formal written essay, because you are using a quite literal definition of 'just' and 'deserts'.
oh, my gawd... i just looked up at this mammoth of a post and i'm slightly taken aback. i mean, damn. really, physix? off of this one maybe-idiom??
gawd... and just when you thought i couldn't care less...
surprise
i could care less.
Hast du 'ne Meise?
lit. 'have you a titmouse'
equivalent to English: 'are you crazy?'
it has everything i was referring to (drops, history) and it has something you brought up: colour. (how does titmouse (a small bird) equate to crazy?)
a couple points you mentioned however:
psood0nym said:
well... that's what i'm saying... but, as most idioms do, things drop off. 'i could care less' becomes a trigger for the understanding of the entire phrase or its meaning (in case you don't know the phrase literally). so, there's no need to say it.
"hear, hear" is an example of a legal idiom. it started off as a longer phrase. things were dropped off for whatever reason, but the "hear, hear" is a trigger to the whole phrase. and, it doesn't matter if, centuries down the road, no one knows the original phrase, because 'hear, hear' TRIGGERS the understanding of the speakers' intentions through context and history. people know how to say it, when to say it, why to say it... even without knowing what it means, where it came from, why it's just two words... that's an example of an idiomatic drop, not merely a contraction.
IF -- and i'm still saying 'if' -- the phrase "could care less" came from a 1 2 punch of someone saying "couldn't care less" then the other person saying "well, you might not can, but i could care less", then it's NOT a mere contraction, it's the drop of an entire portion of the phrase. yet, the TRIGGER -- the punchline, if you will -- is still there.
in fact, i want to say there are examples of PUNCHLINES becoming idiomatic in nature, whereby i can say just the punchline and, if it fits with what's happening, the intention is understood (regardless of if everyone knows the whole joke)... but i can't think of anything yet.
if you look at the history of the phrase 'to the nines', you can see this evolution at BOTH ends, actually: adding on to the phrase, then truncating it.
"to the nines" may have come from Sir John Mandeville's Voyages de Jehan de Mandeville chevalier, in the 14th century:
"Sir king! ye shall have war without peace, and always to the nine degree, ye shall be in subjection of your enemies, and ye shall be needy of all goods."
but it may have been added in translation in the 18th century, where it was popping up in English print and slang to mean either "completely" or "absolutely; with perfection" or something of the sort.
alittle later, it becomes "dressed up to the nines", then later still just 'dressed to the nines' and is specifically used to refer solely to one's dress.
there we have an addition and a truncation within the same century.
centuries later, as people become more and more comfortable with 'dressed to the nines', the word 'dressed' can be dropped and more people use it to refer to ANYTHING that was done 'completely and/or with utter perfection'.
Prince -> love, 2 the 9s [sic]
Oh, that club was fierce! it was done-up [decorated] to the nines!
now, for the most part, after being added to and subtracted from, now it's back to its original form with its original intent.
now, we can debate the color of the phrase, but i'd argue it not TOO terribly colorful. but it is an idiom.
psood0nym said:
we're not supposed, i don't think, not 'all the time... they're not meant to stand alone.
also, where are you from? an idiom is defined, in part, as a specialized language or a distinctive pattern in the usage of the language and the way that language is used in a given region.
so "could care less" may simply not be used where you're from. as such, it won't make sense. THAT'S why i said i didn't think LOGIC should come into play in idioms.
psood0nym said:
if 'could care less' was vague, i'd agree. it's not. it's understood.
now, if it were written correspondence, one could claim ambiguity if no other context was given; but in spoken communication, the sentence's meaning is clear.
in fact, it's SO understood that, even in a form most view as grammatically and/or logically incorrect, the meaning is clear. no matter where you are -- which you use -- if you hear it (not just see it) but hear it, there'd be no mistaking it's meaning. people on here say stuff like 'oh, it must mean that you DO care, alittle'... and they're not saying that because they honestly think that's what it means.
if you're in an argument and someone says:
'i could care less if i go to jail, i'm gonna fuckin' snap your twig bitch neck!'
you would know that they are not saying that they DO care alittle about going to jail. of course, you're not analyzing the person's grammar if things have progressed to THAT level, but you get the gist.
oh, 'gist' is another good example! it comes from a much longer phrase:
This is the gist, this is the heart of the matter, or this is the central focus.
but who wants to say all THAT??!?!?
hands?
psood0nym said:
actually, that is reason enough, as far as linguists are concern, at least. we may not like it, because a lot of shit out there need never be said again. but once it's used to the frequency we see this being used, then it's there... and until people are re-trained to never say it the other way... ~shrug~
in fact, if we must banish 'could care less' because its illogical and grammatically illegal, then why not ban the idiom: music soothes the savage beast, which is an OBVIOUS misquote.
"Play it again, Sam"
another misquote.
Why not get those, as well? Aside from the fact that it would be nigh impossible to find all examples of misquoted phrases that have become to commonplace as to become idiomatic, most people, pardon the pun, couldn't care less.
and i bet you some of those people who 'couldn't care less' about those two idioms are people who vehemently oppose 'could care less' on the same reasons they SHOULD be opposing 'music soothes the savage beast'.
(wait... i think i just lost myself on that one)
psood0nym said:
well, i think i see your point there, but in the case of 'disinterested' and 'uninterested', those are two distinct words with two distinct meanings. those two words have a rather controversial history (both meaning one thing, then switching, then one dropping out of favour, then returning). and, if you use it in informal speech, no one will correct you... but in academia or research or other 'high-end' literature, the two words mean two different things.
i think a better example might be the whole 'regardless'/'irregardless' fiasco. similar to how 'disinterested' has been misused so much that it's become 'okay' to misuse it, even by some English professors and scholars, 'irregardless' has wormed its way into public speaking in some circles and it rarely makes one think twice about its meaning (something to do with throwing a "bad" suffix on a "negative" (meaning: bad) word or some such).
in fact, it'll be interesting to see how irregardless plays out ... there's enough people using it deliberately in a sarcastic and mocking way that, when the sarcasm is lost over time, it might lose that flavour. but in spoken language, in 20 years, the intent of 'irregardless' may turn into merely a synonym for regardless except only in spoken/informal language, devoid of any sarcastic undertone. it'll be exactly what i think happened to the US "care less".
note. i use the word 'interesting' loosely, because really... who's interested? who's waiting with bated breath?)another good example is the whole 'bold-face lie' vs 'bald-faced lie' fiasco (either one can be proven to make sense by definition, but people say one or the other, rarely both).
the other one is 'just deserts', where you say "desserts" and it makes sense... it feels right... and like me, you probably have this image of someoen SO greedy that they ate all the food at dinner and began stuffing their face with cake and desserts and then started choking and then died.
"just desserts".
it's colorful.
makes sense.
makes perfect sense, in fact.
until you find that definition of 'desert' that NO ONE USES any more which refers to 'a just and deserving punishment for an often-illegal activity'. but i don't think people are corrected at all when they use 'dessert'. in fact, i don't think, we quoted, the [sic] tag appears against it to notify that the person who was quoted used the wrong phrase.
in fact, this goes against the believed requirement that idioms must be colourful. this idiom is literal. in fact, you could possibly use it without fuss in a formal written essay, because you are using a quite literal definition of 'just' and 'deserts'.
oh, my gawd... i just looked up at this mammoth of a post and i'm slightly taken aback. i mean, damn. really, physix? off of this one maybe-idiom??
gawd... and just when you thought i couldn't care less...
surprise
i could care less.
Last edited:
cuddly.kittie.too
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 235
psood0nym said:
Heh, I just looked those up. Thanks for that, I am always happy to learn more about what's correct and what isn't.
psood0nym
Bluelighter
physix:
When I responded, to cuddly.kittie.too’s posts with “Hmm, I don’t know. Wouldn’t it need to somehow imply “I could care less, but I don’t care to do even that? Standing alone I don’t see it”, it was in response to his or her reluctant reinterpretation of “I could care less” as possibly being more “apathetic” than “I couldn’t care less”. It would seemingly require an amount of contextual orientation bordering on the ridiculous (as the poster’s reluctance indicates they already mostly intuit) to parse that particular meaning from the statement, simply because the “more apathetic” meaning is not its idiomatic meaning. That’s all. I agree that the idiomatic meaning of “I could care less” as the equivalent to “I couldn’t care less” is understood, just not that it should be used in any but rare instances (in poetry or ironically, such as in this argument).
I mean my arguments for not using “I could care less” to mean “ I couldn’t care less” to be normative arguments beyond the scope of linguistic technicalities and historical happenstance (though I do appreciate your analysis as a matter of general interest). I believe that language usage SHOULD strike a balance between spirit and precision as part of a larger adherence to the time-proven principal of moderation. “I could care less” is as logically ambivalent as most idioms--in a way far more so in that it is directly opposed to the logical meaning of the original phrase--without overtly implying through its style any historical context to understand it in, demonstrating colorful phrasing, or using evocative imagery etc., which by this principal marks it for normative exclusion as a total redundancy. This may be the case with other idioms too, in which case I do not contest their status as idioms, but do contest their use as a matter of general practice (far short of “banning” them however).
The example you gave of “just deserts” is well chosen to demonstrate that idioms need not be colorful. However, as you say, “desert” had a literal meaning and then became obsolete, making the phrase idiomatic by default and, in my view, exceptional, whereas no term in the contested phrase is obsolete, but rather in almost every instance the phrase is logically and aesthetically pointless, regardless of its happening to be understood in practice.
When I responded, to cuddly.kittie.too’s posts with “Hmm, I don’t know. Wouldn’t it need to somehow imply “I could care less, but I don’t care to do even that? Standing alone I don’t see it”, it was in response to his or her reluctant reinterpretation of “I could care less” as possibly being more “apathetic” than “I couldn’t care less”. It would seemingly require an amount of contextual orientation bordering on the ridiculous (as the poster’s reluctance indicates they already mostly intuit) to parse that particular meaning from the statement, simply because the “more apathetic” meaning is not its idiomatic meaning. That’s all. I agree that the idiomatic meaning of “I could care less” as the equivalent to “I couldn’t care less” is understood, just not that it should be used in any but rare instances (in poetry or ironically, such as in this argument).
I mean my arguments for not using “I could care less” to mean “ I couldn’t care less” to be normative arguments beyond the scope of linguistic technicalities and historical happenstance (though I do appreciate your analysis as a matter of general interest). I believe that language usage SHOULD strike a balance between spirit and precision as part of a larger adherence to the time-proven principal of moderation. “I could care less” is as logically ambivalent as most idioms--in a way far more so in that it is directly opposed to the logical meaning of the original phrase--without overtly implying through its style any historical context to understand it in, demonstrating colorful phrasing, or using evocative imagery etc., which by this principal marks it for normative exclusion as a total redundancy. This may be the case with other idioms too, in which case I do not contest their status as idioms, but do contest their use as a matter of general practice (far short of “banning” them however).
The example you gave of “just deserts” is well chosen to demonstrate that idioms need not be colorful. However, as you say, “desert” had a literal meaning and then became obsolete, making the phrase idiomatic by default and, in my view, exceptional, whereas no term in the contested phrase is obsolete, but rather in almost every instance the phrase is logically and aesthetically pointless, regardless of its happening to be understood in practice.
physix
Bluelight Crew
okay, i think i understand your point.
i think the above is certainly true for formal language, written or otherwise. but, i still don't think you can use the parameters you mentioned to judge informal language.
i think i understand what you're trying to say... but i may be missing the point a twee.
'colorful' and 'evocative' are far too qualitative to make a judgment call on the validity of an idiom.
more to the point, the 'historical context' certainly relies of knowledge of the history by the person judging the idiom.
idioms, in part, deal with regional language. simply because someone in Brooklyn doesn't know the historical context of Cockney Idioms/Rhyming Slang nor could they parse the meaning without explanation of that history, doesn't make it more or less valid idiomatic language. in fact, quite the contrary. idioms are expected to confuse. that's why foreign language is so hard to learn for most. once you start delving into colloquialisms and the idiomatic nature of spoken/informal language, then rules and logic and, sometimes, historical context flies out the window. the only thing that matters IS context.
now, formal language is one thing. you should never say "could care less" in an essay or scholastic paper, without there being reason and without indicating that is it to be read as a momentary lapse in formality, which of course is possible. but the same formal rules apply for "couldn't care less", too.
obviously, there's the 'bleed-over' of the semi-formality of newsprint and such and the occasional acceptance of the idiom in formal language (German saying "Ich nach Haus" to mean "I'm going home" being an example).
even in argumentative logic, there's a fallacy designed specifically for arguments that contain idiomatic language. there's no need to determine validity or supposed redundancy, because all that matters is the presence of the idiom, itself.
but to imply that one must have an understanding of an idiom's history for it to be valid is a dangerous attitude to have with regard to language, especially considering the lack of care the average human being has to even learn history of other cultures, let alone why an idiom means what it means.
(but maybe i misunderstood what you meant, which is definitely possible)
psood0nym said:
i think the above is certainly true for formal language, written or otherwise. but, i still don't think you can use the parameters you mentioned to judge informal language.
i think i understand what you're trying to say... but i may be missing the point a twee.
'colorful' and 'evocative' are far too qualitative to make a judgment call on the validity of an idiom.
more to the point, the 'historical context' certainly relies of knowledge of the history by the person judging the idiom.
idioms, in part, deal with regional language. simply because someone in Brooklyn doesn't know the historical context of Cockney Idioms/Rhyming Slang nor could they parse the meaning without explanation of that history, doesn't make it more or less valid idiomatic language. in fact, quite the contrary. idioms are expected to confuse. that's why foreign language is so hard to learn for most. once you start delving into colloquialisms and the idiomatic nature of spoken/informal language, then rules and logic and, sometimes, historical context flies out the window. the only thing that matters IS context.
now, formal language is one thing. you should never say "could care less" in an essay or scholastic paper, without there being reason and without indicating that is it to be read as a momentary lapse in formality, which of course is possible. but the same formal rules apply for "couldn't care less", too.
obviously, there's the 'bleed-over' of the semi-formality of newsprint and such and the occasional acceptance of the idiom in formal language (German saying "Ich nach Haus" to mean "I'm going home" being an example).
even in argumentative logic, there's a fallacy designed specifically for arguments that contain idiomatic language. there's no need to determine validity or supposed redundancy, because all that matters is the presence of the idiom, itself.
but to imply that one must have an understanding of an idiom's history for it to be valid is a dangerous attitude to have with regard to language, especially considering the lack of care the average human being has to even learn history of other cultures, let alone why an idiom means what it means.
(but maybe i misunderstood what you meant, which is definitely possible)
Last edited:
psood0nym
Bluelighter
I didn't mean to say that one must have an understanding of an idiom's history for it to be valid, just that by the idiom's style it is implied that it has a historical context of some kind. It is clear that "dressed to the nines" has some historical context or metaphoric meaning because "the nines" makes no sense any other way. There is, inherent within the phrase, an indication that it is definitely to be understood idiomatically. So that rather than producing logical ambiguity it is just understood to have an unknown meaning to the unaccultured listener. "I could care less" isn't logically nonsensical and could be used literally even where "I couldn't care less" is often used as a response. In such a case (clumsily but not nonsensically) "I could care less" might mean that in fact "I care a little", so it's awkward. For this and for the aforementioned reasons I think that in general it should not be used by people , formally or informally, who are both trying to communicate clearly and have a concern for the degradation of contemporary language (which I think we, as a self-conscious culture, should work harder at refining because, by virtue of our living in it, it's not too late, and because as a mass culture we have the means (again, only with aesthetically vacant and logically redundant, contemporarily produced phrases)). Of course it doesn't really bother me that much, but arguing about it is fun and takes us through some interesting areas doesn't it?physix said:
Last edited:
physix
Bluelight Crew
psood0nym said:
oh, certainly!! it's helped me re-think about some things, for certain.
:thumbs:
physix
Bluelight Crew
psood0nym said:
but it's not awkward. it's only awkward when you look at it and decipher it and think about it. but communication, even clear and concise communication, relies on so much more than that. about 85% of internet 'fights' are proof of this. there's more to communication than that.
for instance, ask a Brit what "whiter than white" means.
ask a New Yorker.
you'll get two difference answers more than likely. but context would help decipher the meaning. the conversation would never degenerate to befuddlement because of the words themselves as context would never allow it.
now, if every (or even most) utterances of 'i could care less' sent people into synaptic overload and degraded the conversation into indecipherable gibberish, then i would agree that the term is causing a break-down of communication. likewise, if you say that it does happen when it happens to you, then i'd be forced to believe you ... but i don't think anyone can honestly say that happens to them.
but 40 years of its existence must mean something...
(and yes, i understand that its disruptive when non-COULDs hear it at least for the first time... but they understand it when its used right off, and any disruption would be minimized if they come across it again. now, whether they chose to hold on to the illogic of the COULD is not a means by which an idiom should be judged on... MO, of course.)
psood0nym
Bluelighter
As a matter of practicality 99.9% of the phrase’s usage is completely innocuous in any singular instance of its utterance. It works. However, adopting any kind of normative stance implies that there is a choice between alternatives, and there are many different ways of conveying the meaning of the idiomatically understood form of “I could care less”. So I defer to criteria beyond what is immediately practical to decide how I will convey a meaning, namely logical and aesthetic criteria. By these criteria the idiomatic “I could care less” is comparatively awkward to the alternatives.
I do this because of my concerns with the larger issue of the homogenization of meaning in language affected by globalization, internet slang, text messages, and the proliferation of non-text and non-speech-based communications media. For all the times I’ve seen “ROFL”, I doubt that anyone was actually rolling on the floor laughing, perhaps they were LOL, or maybe they just . I don’t know anything beyond that they probably felt that something was funny.
The use of ambiguous symbols and communications forms is spreading, and as social beings this affects our development and understanding in negative ways. Any singular instance of an internet acronym or of the aforementioned examples is likely to be almost completely harmless. But when you start accepting these things as a matter of convenience, because it’s easy and works just fine at the time and "everyone knows what it means", you invite a further, more insidious genericization of meaning in the wake of that acceptance. You invite your usage to become habitual, and to be linked together with other stock phrases or ambiguous terms you’ve accepted in the past. A concatenation of ambiguous symbols and phrases destroys the possibility of an implicative context in which to locate meaning because the internal links are all weak or broken. This degradation of language and meaning is not localized and sudden but widespread, reflexive, longitudinal, and largely subconscious. For me, part of a working resistance in such an environment (esp. the subconscious aspect) must involve steadfast adherence to non-pragmatic, non-expedient criteria when making usage judgments; “I could care less”, when used idiomatically, does not meet these criteria.
I do this because of my concerns with the larger issue of the homogenization of meaning in language affected by globalization, internet slang, text messages, and the proliferation of non-text and non-speech-based communications media. For all the times I’ve seen “ROFL”, I doubt that anyone was actually rolling on the floor laughing, perhaps they were LOL, or maybe they just
. I don’t know anything beyond that they probably felt that something was funny. The use of ambiguous symbols and communications forms is spreading, and as social beings this affects our development and understanding in negative ways. Any singular instance of an internet acronym or of the aforementioned examples is likely to be almost completely harmless. But when you start accepting these things as a matter of convenience, because it’s easy and works just fine at the time and "everyone knows what it means", you invite a further, more insidious genericization of meaning in the wake of that acceptance. You invite your usage to become habitual, and to be linked together with other stock phrases or ambiguous terms you’ve accepted in the past. A concatenation of ambiguous symbols and phrases destroys the possibility of an implicative context in which to locate meaning because the internal links are all weak or broken. This degradation of language and meaning is not localized and sudden but widespread, reflexive, longitudinal, and largely subconscious. For me, part of a working resistance in such an environment (esp. the subconscious aspect) must involve steadfast adherence to non-pragmatic, non-expedient criteria when making usage judgments; “I could care less”, when used idiomatically, does not meet these criteria.
Last edited: