I could care less about grammar

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, for sure- you can get really, REALLY lost putting blind faith in a dictionary without context.

Didn't you just make a point in support of deferring to experts?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You will not find one person in a hundred who uses 'awful' to mean 'full of awe' rather than 'a bad thing'.

And by extension, the same with 'awfully'.

Except when they say something like "awfully nice.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
At which point your definition doesn't mean shit.

Oh what do you know! I mean it DOES mean shit, don't I? See?

Well now I'm just confused as to what you are trying to say.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
You may well be more educated in it, yes, you may well also just be lying through your teeth.

The fact remains however, that though it may have found a place within modern language, it is not good English, just as phrases like 'pimp ass ho' aren't good English. They may well be used a lot, but it doesn't mean we should all shrug our shoulders and say ''if it's used, it's good''. I believe this thread's about good use of the English language, not acceptable through majority usage.

I don't care if you think I am lying or not, though I doubt you actually do.

Care to explain why it is worse langauge than any number of commonly used colloquial expressions? Actually the origin of the construction looks 100% logical to me, and there is linguistic power in the contradictory. To call it poor use of language very possibly just betrays a poor understanding of language.

May as well call possessive apostrophes a poor use of language because they have so completely buggered up the original form.

Comparing it to 'pimp ass ho' is just gibberish.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Didn't you just make a point in support of deferring to experts?

Except when they say something like "awfully nice.

Well now I'm just confused as to what you are trying to say.

Yes, you should defer to experts. if you think taking a dictionary mraning without context and using it here is the same thing as deferring to experts, you've made a large error.

You SAY it is except when people say 'awfylly nice'. Again, you won't find 1 in a hundred people consciously aware of that. They've just copied the implied meaning- EXACTLY the same way as 'Could care less' gets spread.

What I am trying to say I feel was perfectly clear. First, that the fact that no-one uses your given definition makes the given definition pointless.

Secondly, the term "Doesn't mean shit" is yet another phrase commonly used that means the opposite.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That;s vague nonsense talk. 'Haphazard construction of English' is just a cover for any form of language development. The way 'could care less' came about could easily be called part of such a haphazard construction- as with "Do you Mind?" and "tell me about it."

Perhaps haphazard was not the ideal word.

English has an huge number of synonyms, homonyms and homophones that make misunderstandings very easy. They also make learning very difficult for nonnative speakers.

Many of the apparent strange idioms in English can trace back to that. "I could care less" doesn't.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And I am not joking at all about 'pretty ugly'. Again- explain it to someone learning the language. It is a complete reversal of the expected use of the term.

If I had to I'd try to explain that there is more than one meaning of "pretty". Things can be "pretty big" or "pretty hot" too, using the same meaning of pretty.

Of course I've never taught a foreign language so I have no idea how well that would work.

Except that "I could care less" probably very much CAN be traced back to a logical construction. At least, logical if you accept many other terms, like the ones I have listed, which you most likely do.

And again, explaining the underlying meaning doesn't make "pretty ugly" any less seemingly nonsense. The underlying meaning to ALL of these things can be explained.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You SAY it is except when people say 'awfylly nice'. Again, you won't find 1 in a hundred people consciously aware of that. They've just copied the implied meaning- EXACTLY the same way as 'Could care less' gets spread.

Kay, I agree with that.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
What I am trying to say I feel was perfectly clear. First, that the fact that no-one uses your given definition makes the given definition pointless.

I disagree srug

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Secondly, the term "Doesn't mean shit" is yet another phrase commonly used that means the opposite.

Plenty of things don't mean shit.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I don't care if you think I am lying or not, though I doubt you actually do.

Care to explain why it is worse langauge than any number of commonly used colloquial expressions? Actually the origin of the construction looks 100% logical to me, and there is linguistic power in the contradictory. To call it poor use of language very possibly just betrays a poor undersyanding of language.

May as well call possessive apostrophes a poor use of language because they have so completely buggered up the original form.

Comparing it to 'pimp ass ho' is just gibberish.

Well, it would not always be poor English, of course not. Though when used to mean 'I couldn't care less', it is. As the oxymoron is not in the phrase, but in the context. Of course, in some cases this can work - satire and sarcasm for example, however when used to actually mean that the person could not care less, saying they could is completely illogical. Within oxymorons there are not two meanings, there is a contradiction, within 'I could care less' there's one logical meaning and that's the one we're supposed to ignore.

That's an absurd thing to disagree with, English is descpritive, not prescriptive, Its use defines the rules, not the other way around. Therefore if there is a definition that is not recognised or used, the definitiuon is wrong.

You've also displayed a very weird take indeed on the 'meaning shit' line that rather makes me despair, frankly. "Doesn't mean shit" means "is rubbish" or "useless" or, and here is the kicker "is shit."

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Except that "I could care less" probably very much CAN be traced back to a logical construction. At least, logical if you accept many other terms, like the ones I have listed, which you most likely do.

My point is that "pretty ugly" and "awfully nice" were created more by the language than by the speakers.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And again, explaining the underlying meaning doesn't make "pretty ugly" any less seemingly nonsense. The underlying meaning to ALL of these things can be explained.

But "pretty ugly" isn't nonsense. "I could care less" is nonsense (if only in an anal retentive way)

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's an absurd thing to disagree with, English is descpritive, not prescriptive, Its use defines the rules, not the other way around. Therefore if there is a definition that is not recognised or used, the definitiuon is wrong.

Which I think is equally absurd.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You've also displayed a very weird take indeed on the 'meaning shit' line that rather makes me despair, frankly. "Doesn't mean shit" means "is rubbish" or "useless" or, and here is the kicker "is shit."

I'm really not following you. Probably not enough sleep.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Well, it would not always be poor English, of course not. Though when used to mean 'I couldn't care less', it is. As the oxymoron is not in the phrase, but in the context. Of course, in some cases this can work - satire and sarcasm for example, however when used to actually mean that the person could not care less, saying they could is completely illogical. Within oxymorons there are not two meanings, there is a contradiction, within 'I could care less' there's one logical meaning and that's the one we're supposed to ignore.

Just going around in circles here- at which point I tend to pull out an argument,. I refer you once more to "Do you mind?" and "Tell me about it." Your point about there being only one logical meaning does not work at all. The 'logical' meaning is entirely irrelevant. Talking about logic in language is a dismal take anyway; just look at irregular verbs.

It is VERY important indeed that you get away friom the idea that just because the origins of the term are most likely in sarcasm, it is now therefore wrong to use it without the sarcasm. Again, go back to the 'awfully nice' thing. It doesn't matter how ignorant you are of the origin,. What you do is duplicate meaning by observation. Sarcastic or not sarcastic, 'could care less' generally means the opposite.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which I think is equally absurd.

Perfectly within your rights to think it absurd. But it is a simple fact.

You would likely prefer French, which is prescriptive.

Of course, French is a slowly dying language, whilst English- the more open, the most changing, the most descriptive (in this use of the term, though frankly due to its multiple origins it probably does carry more description than any other major language) has become nigh-on indestructible.

You know what they say about languages that don't change...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Just going around in circles here- at which point I tend to pull out an argument,. I refer you once more to "Do you mind?" and "Tell me about it." Your point about there being only one logical meaning [b]does not work at all. The 'logical' meaning is entirely irrelevant. Talking about logic in language is a dismal take anyway; just look at irregular verbs.

It is VERY important indeed that you get away friom the idea that just because the origins of the term are most likely in sarcasm, it is now therefore wrong to use it without the sarcasm. Again, go back to the 'awfully nice' thing. It doesn't matter how ignorant you are of the origin,. What you do is duplicate meaning by observation. Sarcastic or not sarcastic, 'could care less' generally means the opposite. [/B]

'Do you mind?' and 'tell me about it' are either rhetorical devices, or actual phrases meant to further a discussion.

'Awfully nice' has a contradiction within the phrase, therefore an oxymoron - a contradiction in terms, 'could care less' is not comparable as it relies on the context.

Using the rational expressed by some in here, Ebonics could be considered correct/proper English. "Dat my house", of course the speaker intends to say "This is my house", still doesn't make it right though.

Here is something to think about...

When someone refers to something as terrible/not good, they call it "awful". When someone refers to something that is great/appealing, they call it "awesome". Going by that logic...it is the "awe" that is the negative portion of those two words. For something to be unbelievably great/appealling, it would have to be "awless" because no "awe" at all would better than something that is full of awe or something that has some "awe" in it.

IIII

Originally posted by lord xyz
And that sentence is true. However, lots of people say "could care less" when what they actually mean is "couldn't care less" as that makes sense. Sorry, it's just annosyed me too much.

COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.
COULDN'T CARE LESS.

Oh, and to keep this thread open, discuss other common misuses of grammar.

Yeah, I just saved this thread.

Originally posted by lord xyz
And that sentence is true. However, lots of people say "could care less" when what they actually mean is "couldn't care less" as that makes sense. Sorry, it's just annosyed me too much.

No, I really could care less. I'm , just to tired to give a fvck though 😉

highly unlikely

lowly likely

i hate that show..

'Awfully nice' isn't really an oxymoron.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Here is something to think about...

When someone refers to something as terrible/not good, they call it "awful". When someone refers to something that is great/appealing, they call it "awesome". Going by that logic...it is the "awe" that is the negative portion of those two words. For something to be unbelievably great/appealling, it would have to be "awless" because no "awe" at all would better than something that is full of awe or something that has some "awe" in it.

IIII

Sort of like no sense at all is better than something with some sense in it?