"Irregardless" makes me crazy, but "For all intensive purposes" makes my head explode.
But I have an issue with "I couldn't care less". This is where English has it all wrong even by its own standard.
Whack things folks say
- Thread starter normisanas
- Start date
"Irregardless" makes me crazy, but "For all intensive purposes" makes my head explode.
But I have an issue with "I couldn't care less". This is where English has it all wrong even by its own standard.
"I have seen it" is a nice alternative as well.
I did have an argument with a co-worker about "I could care less". That can be construed as saying "I care a little" which is not the intention of the original saying "I couldn't care less". I am baffled as to why you have a problem with it?
I did have an argument with a co-worker about "I could care less". That can be construed as saying "I care a little" which is not the intention of the original saying "I couldn't care less". I am baffled as to why you have a problem with it?
"I couldn't care less" is an interesting one. What it purports to mean is, is that the person is not able to care less than he already does. But one thing is that it suffers from the same problem as "irregardless" - which sounds like against without regard, a double negative. If someone really meant "against without regard", what they should say is "with regard", so "irregardless" should be "regarding". So "couldn't care less" is also logically a double negative, and what it becomes is "could care more".
Even semantically it results in the same thing - if you couldn't care less, or in other words, if you are not able to care less about something it means you cannot exceed the least care something is due, thus you must be at the very bottom of caring for something; and since "couldn't care less" is transitive rather than being static, you must then be caring more than the least something is due. Thus, "I couldn't care less" = "I care more".
There is also a case to be made for "I could care less". It means that you hold a higher arbitrary value of care to something that is worth less. It denotes by contrast to your action that the thing is not worthy of care, thus achieves what "I couldn't care less" purports to where the latter fails.
Interesting, I take it to mean "I don't care at all" not "that the person is not able to care less than he already does". Therefore, "I don't care at all" equals "I couldn't care less" and does not equal "I could care less (if you could care less that means you care a little)". So no, I respectfully disagree.
For example:
some idiot from Toronto: The Laffs game is on CBC tonight.
me: I couldn't fucking care less:eyebrows:.
I agree that "I could care less" means that you do care a little. But my point was that everything is with reference to the value of something to be cared/not cared about. Thus caring a little implies that the thing is arbitrarily cared for more than what its worth is in terms of caring.
I think where you seem to be coming from with your "I don't care at all" is that is the way you feel and the focus is all about how you feel, especially when compared to the meaning I infer with "I couldn't care less" where the meaning is on the contrast of how one feels versus the thing's worthiness for being cared for. Am I right about that? And if so, then why would you say "I couldn't care less" when you could simply and directly say, "I don't care at all"? To put it into a more passive or detached voice?
Here is what the great interweb has to say:
From dictionary.com:
Which is correct: I could care less or I couldn't care less?
The expression I could not care less originally meant 'it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all'. It was originally a British saying and came to the US in the 1950s. It is senseless to transform it into the now-common I could care less. If you could care less, that means you care at least a little. The original is quite sarcastic and the other form is clearly nonsense. The inverted form I could care less was coined in the US and is found only here, recorded in print by 1966. The question is, something caused the negative to vanish even while the original form of the expression was still very much in vogue and available for comparison - so what was it? There are other American English expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of an apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means 'Don't tell me about it, because I know all about it already'. The Yiddish I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often 'I have no hope of being so lucky', has a similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning as does I could care less.
Please stop bastardizing the phrase!
@vc: I learnt English from the Brits not the yanks. And you only quoted the part that supports your POV
.trouble is, english is a dynamic language, changing all the time
one generation's slang or incorrect useage becomes the next generation's correct useage
i got this from the site dictionary.com - it describes the 'could care less' form as a 'sarcastic inversion' and gives other examples
***edit***
yo wilde - same example!!
one generation's slang or incorrect useage becomes the next generation's correct useage
i got this from the site dictionary.com - it describes the 'could care less' form as a 'sarcastic inversion' and gives other examples
http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/g09.html
***edit***
yo wilde - same example!!
"I know, I seen that already." :doh:
I think it is laziness of the speaker. Or picking up other cultural phrases.
For example, my ex used to say "Such is the life" whereas here we would say "Such is life". So I still have a habit of saying it "his way".
I think it is laziness of the speaker. Or picking up other cultural phrases.
For example, my ex used to say "Such is the life" whereas here we would say "Such is life". So I still have a habit of saying it "his way".
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/could-care-less-versus-couldnt-care-less
"Could Care Less" Versus "Couldn't Care Less"
What’s the Trouble?
People say they could care less when, logically, they mean they couldn’t care less.
The phrase "I couldn’t care less" originated in Britain and made its way to the United States in the 1950s. The phrase "I could care less" appeared in the US about a decade later.
In the early 1990s, the well-known Harvard professor and language writer Stephen Pinker argued that the way most people say could care less—the way they emphasize the words—implies they are being ironic or sarcastic.
Other linguists have argued that the type of sound at the end of "couldn’t" is naturally dropped by sloppy or slurring speakers.
Regardless of the reason people say they could care less, it is one of the more common language peeves because of its illogical nature. To say you could care less means you have a bit of caring left, which is not what the speakers seem to intend. The proper "couldn’t care less" is still the dominant form in print, but "could care less" has been steadily gaining ground since its appearance in the 1960s.
What Should You Do?
Stick with "couldn’t care less."
Here's an example from the TV show Psych:
Juliet O'Hara: Guess what today is.
Carlton Lassiter: It's not one of those touchy-feely holidays invented by card companies to goad me into buying a present for someone I couldn't care less about, is it?
- Maggie Lawson playing O’Hara and Timothy Omundson playing Lassiter
- See more at: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/ed...versus-couldnt-care-less#sthash.Z5GpBDGE.dpuf
"Could Care Less" Versus "Couldn't Care Less"
What’s the Trouble?
People say they could care less when, logically, they mean they couldn’t care less.
The phrase "I couldn’t care less" originated in Britain and made its way to the United States in the 1950s. The phrase "I could care less" appeared in the US about a decade later.
In the early 1990s, the well-known Harvard professor and language writer Stephen Pinker argued that the way most people say could care less—the way they emphasize the words—implies they are being ironic or sarcastic.
Other linguists have argued that the type of sound at the end of "couldn’t" is naturally dropped by sloppy or slurring speakers.
Regardless of the reason people say they could care less, it is one of the more common language peeves because of its illogical nature. To say you could care less means you have a bit of caring left, which is not what the speakers seem to intend. The proper "couldn’t care less" is still the dominant form in print, but "could care less" has been steadily gaining ground since its appearance in the 1960s.
What Should You Do?
Stick with "couldn’t care less."
Here's an example from the TV show Psych:
Juliet O'Hara: Guess what today is.
Carlton Lassiter: It's not one of those touchy-feely holidays invented by card companies to goad me into buying a present for someone I couldn't care less about, is it?
- Maggie Lawson playing O’Hara and Timothy Omundson playing Lassiter
- See more at: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/ed...versus-couldnt-care-less#sthash.Z5GpBDGE.dpuf
I take "irregardless" to mean "without without regard" which is pure nonsense or a real clumsy way of saying "with regard" which is the opposite of "regardless". So this have absolutely nothing to with the couldn't/could care less argument. In your argument you contend that couldn't/could care less have the same meaning. In this case, it is the opposite.
Last edited:
Yeah, in a feww years "ICCL" will be the accepted proper usage...one generation's slang or incorrect useage becomes the next generation's correct usage
the word "got" is often redundant.
one might say I've got a new car,when I have a new car will do.
similarly, have you got the time? when do you have the time? will suffice.
not something I get bent out of shape over, cuz,really, I COULDN'T CARE LESS..,lol.
one might say I've got a new car,when I have a new car will do.
similarly, have you got the time? when do you have the time? will suffice.
not something I get bent out of shape over, cuz,really, I COULDN'T CARE LESS..,lol.
Thanks for your internet research on the history of "couldn't care less" and "could care less". It was informative and enlightening, and even entertaining. It puts new light into my own use of either of these expressions, and whereas I thought I originated my own usage of "could care less" believing I was correcting what I heard others say, "couldn't care less", it could very well have been passed on from the American usage after all. Nevertheless, in those articles the logic is not completely followed through, as instructive as it was. If the logic was followed through, though "could care less" means you care a little, to which I agree, still elevates the caring arbitrarily of something worth nothing thereby indirectly focusing in a similar sarcastic tone the worthlessness of it. But conventional wisdom sometimes has to prevail, or at least I need to be aware of it. Thanks.
But that you say "irregardless" is dissimilar/has no relation to "couldn't care less", I respectfully disagree. I think you take their argument one step further and apply it herein, and in my opinion it is unapplicable.
Hold on a sec here, I don't even know this one and, for a minute, I had it confused with IIRC...
That is not redundant. Those are two different but equally acceptable ways of talking about possession. They just use different auxiliary verbs.
"Have you got?" is mostly a British English way of asking about possession. The aux. here is "get"
"Do you have?" is the more American English way of talking about possession. The aux. here is "do"
As long as you don't mix up the two forms (i.e. "Do you got the time?") they are both perfectly fine, and neither one is redundant.
Your first example is the same thing, but you only see the "do" aux verb in the question form of that statement. Again, the first one is more British, second one is more American.
