5 ms·

The phrase is "I couldn't care less." As in: You already care the minimum amount.

by gk1 9y ago

Stratoscope 9y ago
"I could care less" is just as correct as "I couldn't care less". They mean exactly the same thing. Yes, I know this is illogical: how could two phrases mean the same thing when their literal meanings are direct opposites? But they are both idioms, and idioms do not follow that kind of strict logic. Here are a number of articles that explain this better than I could: https://www.google.com/search?q=i+could+care+less https://www.google.com/search?q=i+could+care+less
- gk1 9y ago
  The first result of that search confirms that it's "I couldn't care less."
  - Stratoscope 9y ago
    As the other search results explain, both forms of the idiom are in common use in English today. It does little good to "correct" people for using a widely understood idiom. No one is confused about what anyone means when they say "I could care less". I do sympathize with how you feel about this. I've been in your shoes [1]: several years ago I went through Wikipedia and changed a bunch of templates that used the phrase "due to" to say "because of". You're probably aware of the rules around these, e.g. these were considered correct: "The flight was late because of bad weather." "The late flight was due to bad weather." But never: "The flight was late due to bad weather." After I edited the templates, someone reverted my change and asked me, "Mike, have you looked at a dictionary lately?" Sure enough, "due to" is now common usage and perfectly acceptable where "because of" used to be required by the rules of correct grammar. You might say my thinking was out of date due to my not keeping up with changes in the English language. But then I realized I could care less which way anyone wrote it. [1] Of course I have not literally been in your shoes! That's an idiom too, best expressed in the old joke: "Don't criticize a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes. That way, when you do criticize him, you'll be a mile away and you'll have his shoes."
- xiaoma 9y ago
  They're "literally" the same.
  - Stratoscope 9y ago
    Best comment of the day! Figuratively speaking... You will probably like this: https://xkcd.com/1576/ https://xkcd.com/1576/ (Be sure to hover the mouse to read the tooltip...)
scarface74 9y ago
So you correct an idiom that are both in common use but you don't correct an obvious typo? If you're going to be pedantic, at least be completely pedantic. Your pedantry about an idiom doesn't jive * with your non-pedantry about misspellings. * Yes I said jive instead of jibe just to irritate people.
- gk1 9y ago
  That's... An odd reaction to someone making a correction. Really hope you don't act this way in code reviews or any other time you're getting feedback. Typos are know-better errors. The person committing the typo knows the right spelling, they just hit the wrong key. Pointing out the error wouldn't teach anyone anything new. Malapropisms, on the other hand, are don't-know-better errors; the person committing the error doesn't know what they did wrong. In that case, pointing it out could be educational both for them and other readers.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    I can see the difference and interesting unexpected conversation did come out of it.
  - Stratoscope 9y ago
    An idiom is not a malapropism. scarface74 did not commit a malapropism, and it was hardly a case where "the person committing the error doesn't know what they did wrong." It was simply the use of a common idiom. The author knew exactly what they were saying, and everyone reading the comment understood its meaning, yourself included. A malapropism is like the Yogi Berra example in Wikipedia: "Texas has a lot of electrical votes." Few people make that particular mistake, and that's what made it funny. Of course, Yogi Berra got a lot of attention for phrases like that. So you have to wonder if he really made a dumb mistake, or if he was being dumb like a fox. But he couldn't be dumb like a fox, could he? No one thinks foxes are dumb, those sly little rascals! And that's what makes "dumb like a fox" a colorful and insightful idiom - just like "I could care less" or "I've been in your shoes." Obviously none of these is to be taken literally, and everyone knows that. Language is much more fun when we allow ourselves to play with it, rather than insist that every word be taken at its most literal meaning.

The phrase is "I couldn't care less." As in: You already care the minimum amount.

by gk1 9y ago

The phrase is "I couldn't care less." As in: You already care the minimum amount.

"I could care less" is just as correct as "I couldn't care less". They mean exactly the same thing. Yes, I know this is illogical: how could two phrases mean the same thing when their literal meanings are direct opposites? But they are both idioms, and idioms do not follow that kind of strict logic. Here are a number of articles that explain this better than I could: https://www.google.com/search?q=i+could+care+less https://www.google.com/search?q=i+could+care+less

gk1 9y ago
The first result of that search confirms that it's "I couldn't care less."
- Stratoscope 9y ago
  As the other search results explain, both forms of the idiom are in common use in English today. It does little good to "correct" people for using a widely understood idiom. No one is confused about what anyone means when they say "I could care less". I do sympathize with how you feel about this. I've been in your shoes [1]: several years ago I went through Wikipedia and changed a bunch of templates that used the phrase "due to" to say "because of". You're probably aware of the rules around these, e.g. these were considered correct: "The flight was late because of bad weather." "The late flight was due to bad weather." But never: "The flight was late due to bad weather." After I edited the templates, someone reverted my change and asked me, "Mike, have you looked at a dictionary lately?" Sure enough, "due to" is now common usage and perfectly acceptable where "because of" used to be required by the rules of correct grammar. You might say my thinking was out of date due to my not keeping up with changes in the English language. But then I realized I could care less which way anyone wrote it. [1] Of course I have not literally been in your shoes! That's an idiom too, best expressed in the old joke: "Don't criticize a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes. That way, when you do criticize him, you'll be a mile away and you'll have his shoes."
xiaoma 9y ago
They're "literally" the same.
- Stratoscope 9y ago
  Best comment of the day! Figuratively speaking... You will probably like this: https://xkcd.com/1576/ https://xkcd.com/1576/ (Be sure to hover the mouse to read the tooltip...)

scarface74 9y ago

So you correct an idiom that are both in common use but you don't correct an obvious typo? If you're going to be pedantic, at least be completely pedantic. Your pedantry about an idiom doesn't jive * with your non-pedantry about misspellings. * Yes I said jive instead of jibe just to irritate people.

gk1 9y ago
That's... An odd reaction to someone making a correction. Really hope you don't act this way in code reviews or any other time you're getting feedback. Typos are know-better errors. The person committing the typo knows the right spelling, they just hit the wrong key. Pointing out the error wouldn't teach anyone anything new. Malapropisms, on the other hand, are don't-know-better errors; the person committing the error doesn't know what they did wrong. In that case, pointing it out could be educational both for them and other readers.
- scarface74 9y ago
  I can see the difference and interesting unexpected conversation did come out of it.
- Stratoscope 9y ago
  An idiom is not a malapropism. scarface74 did not commit a malapropism, and it was hardly a case where "the person committing the error doesn't know what they did wrong." It was simply the use of a common idiom. The author knew exactly what they were saying, and everyone reading the comment understood its meaning, yourself included. A malapropism is like the Yogi Berra example in Wikipedia: "Texas has a lot of electrical votes." Few people make that particular mistake, and that's what made it funny. Of course, Yogi Berra got a lot of attention for phrases like that. So you have to wonder if he really made a dumb mistake, or if he was being dumb like a fox. But he couldn't be dumb like a fox, could he? No one thinks foxes are dumb, those sly little rascals! And that's what makes "dumb like a fox" a colorful and insightful idiom - just like "I could care less" or "I've been in your shoes." Obviously none of these is to be taken literally, and everyone knows that. Language is much more fun when we allow ourselves to play with it, rather than insist that every word be taken at its most literal meaning.