"Could care less", or "couldn't care less"?

dutchbb said:
And a whole lot of other (respected) people then. I have a different view on this matter, that doesn't mean I'm incorrect.
Click to expand...
Most people who speak English and aren't lacking intelligence will say it is incorrect, following original English structure.

As I said in my post, the English language has been getting dumbed down for the general masses, rather then teaching them proper English, it has somehow become more correct to modify the language in ways that don't follow original structure.

And rather then saying the language has evolved, its quite easy to argue it has -devolved-.
 
Okay, guys, TIME OUT!!! Y'all sound like 5 year olds.

If language DIDN"T evolve...we would all be speaking the language that Beowolf was written in and I honestly don't see us doing that. So there is a reason for language to evolve.
 
Forsaken said:
Most people who speak English and aren't lacking intelligence will say it is incorrect, following original English structure.
Click to expand...
Well they would be correct, since it isn't original English structure.

As I said in my post, the English language has been getting dumbed down for the general masses, rather then teaching them proper English, it has somehow become more correct to modify the language in ways that don't follow original structure.
Click to expand...
Then by that logic we could argue that any idiom is wrong and they should all be banned from language. Or maybe we should vote for which are good and which are bad?

If language would always follow 'original structure', there would be no English, let alone modern English.

And rather then saying the language has evolved, its quite easy to argue it has -devolved-.
Click to expand...
It's still evolution though, I repeat the words of professor Paul Brians:

"the problem is that as [a new idiom] evolves, you get caught as a user between people who are going with the new pattern and those who know the old pattern and are comfortable with it."

If it's ok with you, I propose to agree to disagree ;)
 
I disagree that this is a case of a changing idiom, or of the language evolving. This is a case of something being stated that actually means the complete opposite of the intended meaning.

If I started saying "I am not a forum software developer" when what I actually meant was "I am a forum software developer", people would rightly think I was an idiot.
 
Elizabeth said:
Okay, guys, TIME OUT!!! Y'all sound like 5 year olds.

If language DIDN"T evolve...we would all be speaking the language that Beowolf was written in and I honestly don't see us doing that. So there is a reason for language to evolve.
Click to expand...

The thing is, since around the late 80's, English has been dumbed done extensively (Especially American English), which isn't evolving.
dutchbb said:
Well they would be correct, since it isn't original English structure.

Then by that logic we could argue that any idiom is wrong and they should all be banned from language. Or maybe we should vote for which are good and which are bad?

If language would always follow 'original structure', there would be no English, let alone modern English.

It's still evolution though, I repeat the words of professor Paul Brians:

"the problem is that as [a new idiom] evolves, you get caught as a user between people who are going with the new pattern and those who know the old pattern and are comfortable with it."

If it's ok with you, I propose to agree to disagree ;)
Click to expand...

Now I remember why I choose not to reply to many of your posts...

You cannot exchange could not for could; the words are completely opposite of one another in meaning, and therefore change the meaning of the phrase. You might be able to parrot words by a professor of English, however there are many professors who will argue the opposite.

But clearly you're a master of languages, and know everything right :rolleyes:.
 
Forsaken said:
The thing is, since around the late 80's, English has been dumbed done extensively (Especially American English), which isn't evolving.
Click to expand...
I happen to agree...and the worst offender's are the ones that post online in chat rooms.

However, y'all were beginning to sound like 5 year olds, back and forth with no resolution in sight.

With that said, I could care less just "sounds wrong". I know the phrase, I couldn't care less is wrong but it "sounds more accurate and more forceful" even if not correct.
 
See but mostly this is a result of people not wanting to admit that though their message can still understood , fundamentally based on the rules of the English language it IS wrong. That is not to say what they are referencing with that phrase isn't content worthy which is the main point of communication, the content of the message.

I can only think of one example of things like this being used directly that ACTUALLY effects the interpretation of the intended statement...I will however refrain from saying it as it has to do with tax law in the US. Completely irrelevant here but at the same time 100% relevant but only as a comparison standard.

The term I reference is "voluntary compliance" which has a distinct meaning based on the dictionary definition of the two individual words yet it is completely used in opposite in regards to enforcement of that statement.

Either way I could care less but only if it didn't have the ramifications of dissonance in a group that miscommunication more often than not carries.
 
Forsaken said:
Now I remember why I choose not to reply to many of your posts...
Click to expand...
Excuse me buddy? I wasn't offensive in my replies to you, so I expect the same of you. And my other posts have nothing to do with this.

You cannot exchange could not for could; the words are completely opposite of one another in meaning, and therefore change the meaning of the phrase. You might be able to parrot words by a professor of English, however there are many professors who will argue the opposite.
Click to expand...
First of all, I never said I agree with the idiom, I just recognized that it is a reality.

Secondly, again you feel the need to reply with personal attacks instead of real arguments.

Thirdly, the only reason a refer to a professor, is because those are people who are dealing with this matter every day, so that might be relevant when laymen are going to discuss this.

And I want to add that this professor also does not agree with this being a good evolution. But he sees it as a losing battle to try to fight it. Eventually, it will become accepted (if not already), whether people like it or not.

But clearly you're a master of languages, and know everything right .
Click to expand...
That's three times a personal remark, when I never did it to you. Bravo.
 
Could care less, when speaking about something you are not enthusiastic about grammatically makes no sense. Really gets on my nerves. That, and "a whole nother"
 

Similar threads

Russ
Fixed Object of class Less_Tree_Dimension could not be converted to int
Replies
17
Views
557
zoldos
zoldos
M
I came over from SMF...and couldn't be happier!
Replies
8
Views
689
Brad Padgett
Brad Padgett
DRE
Have you ever had to leave your forum to someone for a couple weeks or so?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Eoj Nawoh
Eoj Nawoh
Back
Top Bottom