4 ms·
It'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
by sunshowers 2y ago
It'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.