People who use the shortened form are often convinced they are right because they are being “ironic” and some even claim it’s the original form. But here’s the entry in The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms:
This expression originated about 1940 in Britain and for a time invariably used couldn’t. About 1960 could was occasionally substituted, and today both versions are used with approximately equal frequency, despite their being antonyms.
“I could care less” just isn’t logically ironic. The people speaking feel irony, but their words don’t convey it. “I’d buy those jeans” could be ironic if you really meant the opposite: you wouldn’t buy those jeans if they were the last pair in the world. But “I could care less” isn’t used to imply its opposite: that you care more. Thus it is not ironic.
“Couldn’t care less” is a strong statement because it says you don’t care at all, zero!
“Could care less,” whatever meaning you take it to have, does not have that crucial message of zero interest which gives the original saying its sting.
Kier@vBulletin said:The use of 'could care less' is a widespread phenomenon, primarily in the USA. It seems to stem from people repeating what they think they hear, without thinking about what they are actually saying.
The original expression is couldn't care less, meaning that it would be impossible to be less concerned about the matter, whereas the incorrect use of could care less implies the opposite, namely that the person in question could indeed care less about the matter, so they by definition have some degree of care - almost certainly not what the speaker intended to say.
Pet hate of mine.
Lesson of obviousness now concluded. Carry on.
I happen to disagree with that opinion.It makes no difference what he said.
It's still incorrect.
If you can't see the difference between could and could not then there's not much more to say.And a whole lot of other (respected) people then. I have a different view on this matter, that doesn't mean I'm incorrect.
But you're probably going to respond now with 'yes you are'.