7 ms·
It's like "could care less": not perfectly logical but quite idiomatic I think, and in any case the meaning is clear.
by sunshowers 2y ago
It's like "could care less": not perfectly logical but quite idiomatic I think, and in any case the meaning is clear.
- sheepdestroyer 2y agoThe meaning is likely understood/inferred by many if not most, sure. It's still a "contresens" (can't find the right word in English, literally counter to its meaning), and should absolutely be avoided for clarity. Let's not just say that it's alright
- cenamus 2y agoSounds vaguely similar to Jesperson's cycle and double negatives, the "couldn't care less" idioms. And "absolutely avoided for clarity" is a bit harsh, language is by its nature imprecise and telling people how to speak has (thankfully) almost never worked to avert language change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jespersen%27s_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jespersen%27s_cycle
- sunshowers 2y agoIt's alright. Human languages aren't really logically tight the way computer languages are. An example that goes completely unremarked on is "near miss", which logically means something that came close to missing but actually hit, and yet in idiomatic use means the opposite. People also get upset at "literally" to mean "figuratively", another one I find strange because it's an intensifier. Clarity matters more in formal writing, and "couldn't care less" isn't particularly formal in any case.
- SoftTalker 2y agoGeorge Carlin had a bit about “near miss” and other illogical phrasings.
- synecdoche 2y agoIn a way there’s nothing wrong with ”near miss”. It’s a miss not far from the target. Still a miss.
- saltcured 2y agoI wouldn't put these in the same category. The inversion of "could care less" meaning "couldn't care less" or "unloose" meaning "loose" are similar. But "near miss" is more a parsing ambiguity, if not a mere disagreement about grammar. People who think it is illogical seem to assume it is "nearly missing". But in actual usage it is more that "near miss" is like a "narrow miss" and a "far miss" is like a "wide miss", all encoding distance to the implied target/hit zone.
- sheepdestroyer 2y agoI did use literally correctly. And I can't agree with you. As a non native speaker, I deeply appreciate people making an effort to use language correctly to transmit information. I call that being mindfull of your interlocutors.
- sunshowers 2y agoI'm also a non-native (though near-native) speaker and writer. I grew up reading a lot of English but not speaking much of it.
- navbaker 2y agoIt is alright. Most people can figure out from context clues what the writer means and the only thing being pedantic and demanding about other peoples’ language does is make them REALLY not want to do what you’re saying.
- nothrabannosir 2y agoClear meaning: yes. But idiomatic? I have to protest XD Could care less has indeed left the barn by now and I could care less (as you can tell) but mixing up understate and overstate? I hope we’re in time to stop this horse.
- soulofmischief 2y agoI agree and I'm glad I was corrected. I think we lost the plot once "unloosen" and "loosen" started meaning the same thing: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/unloosen https://www.dictionary.com/browse/unloosen
- nothrabannosir 2y ago(for the record it's all inconsequential pedantry and in good cheer :) thanks for being a good sport)
- stavros 2y ago"Idiomatic" is idiomatic usage for "wrong".
- sunshowers 2y agoWhat? In this context, idiomatic just means the kinds of expressions that native speakers would use. (The term also applies to programming languages.) By definition, native speakers aren't wrong. If your model doesn't match observed reality, it is the model that's at issue, not reality.