8 ms·

I commend you, good sir, and assert that you are no grammar nazi. A nazi is crude, unreasonable and thoughtless. You are none of these things. You have merel

by mcantor 17y ago

I commend you, good sir, and assert that you are no grammar nazi. A nazi is crude, unreasonable and thoughtless. You are none of these things. You have merely demanded a minimum amount of effort from the people around you, an infinitesimal moment spent in quiet reflection that could perhaps result in a magical epiphany resembling, "Wait a minute, if I could care less, that means I am caring more than the minimum! That is not what I am trying to express! Alack, I must duly backspace." Edit: And to whoever downvoted this man, I officially call you a knave.

thismat 17y ago
Spot on sir. I up voted the both of you as this is a huge irk or mine as well. Say what you mean, don't just rehash phrases you've heard before! This says a lot about how much thought we put into what we're saying and hearing, as I've seen and heard this on all types of media, from TV, movies, radio, books...
- redorb 17y ago
  I'll bite: I couldn't care less about anyones irk's - You get the point of what he was trying to say .... so why point out the difference? - I think its a smug ass hole thing to do. edit: This comment also puts me in that category.
  - mcantor 17y ago
    I upvoted you because it is a smug, asinine thing to do, but I disagree with your implication that he thus should not have done it. However, because this is One Of Those Issues, I have split my reply into two conceptual sections: Objective: It seems that the world is largely organized into two classes of people: those who care about precision of speech beyond the simple need for making someone else understand your point, and those who believe that as long as everyone is on the same page, then for God's sake, it bears no further discussion. "I could care less" apologists are in the latter group, clearly, but it is important for both groups to exist and speak up. Of course, this means that while I disagree that he shouldn't have mentioned it, I agree that you should have criticised him for mentioning it. Subjective: My disgust with "I could care less" goes beyond mere imprecision of speech. There are people in this HN thread claiming that when someone says "I could care less," they mean "I could care less, but it would require effort." I think that this is definitely not what most people think they are saying when they say "I could care less." I think most people are trying to express, "I couldn't care less even if I tried," but are failing to express that because they are simply regurgitating things they have already heard. This is a pernicious habit indicative of a deeper lack of thoughtfulness and creativity in our society, and it drives me completely crazy.
    - redorb 17y ago
      what a diplomat (seriously) - thanks for your analysis I can now see the other side a bit easier.
    - thismat 17y ago
      I don't point this out to people for the reason stated. It does irk me, but I keep my peace, even when it's my own brother. That being said, this is a forum that is detailed and critical by nature, I don't feel it's smug to voice a subjective opinion on the matter. Still, you're right, it can be(and most likely is in most situations), a very rude and smug thing to do, but it all depends on the person as well. Do they receive critical comments well? Will they be enlightened because of it?
    - dirkstoop 17y ago
      I agree with you in broad lines but would like to raise one nuance that I find essential to the ongoing debate. Many now popular constructs in contemporary language have come forth from – at their time – seemingly illogical mutations. By banning all seemingly illogical new ways of saying things, or in other words: only letting new constructs that make more sense pass unopposed, we effectively kill a language. A language that allows for only the most logical and most effective of ways to express ideas has no room for creativity. (I'm referring to creativity with the language, as in playing with the language, e.g. stand up comedy or creative writing; it is perfectly possible to be creative using a dead language, or to write beautiful – syntactically correct – code.) Considering how evolution seems to work, such a 'pure' language is inevitably where we'll end up if we kill off all seemingly illogical new constructs. To bring my point back to where I started: There are not two groups, one that cares about precision of speech and one that doesn't. I understand you deliberately simplified your explanation, there are never 'two groups', but I think there's another, more interesting, way to view this difference beyond just stating that there obviously must be a continuum between two extremes. I pose that we all have a certain tolerance level for how incorrect a construct may be with regard to how we value its addition to the language (is it merely a lame bastardization, like "I could care less", or does it have actual merit, like "to upvote") for us to accept or reject that construct. If we shoot down "I could care less" only because it's unsound – or if you prefer, incorrect or imprecise – we may be smug, but we are definitely being reckless and are doing the language a big disfavor. If, instead, we point at this wart in someone's copy because its (1) unsound and (2) lacks any merit over the correct version, I don't think that's smug, let alone asinine, at all.
  - yan 17y ago
    "Richard Feynman, [Murray] Gell-Mann's chief competitor for the title of the World's Smartest Man but a stranger to pretension, once encountered Gell-Mann in the hall outside their offices at Caltech and asked him where he had been on a recent trip; 'Moon-TRAY-ALGH!' Gell-Mann responded in a French accent so thick that he sounded as if he were strangling. Feynman - who, like Gell-Mann, was born in New York City - had no idea what he was talking about. 'Don't you think,' he asked Gell-Mann, when at length he had ascertained that Gell-Mann was saying 'Montreal,' 'that the purpose of language is communication?'"
    - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      A fine anecdote - Gell-Mann was of course communicating not only that he had been to Montreal, but also that it was a French name, that he new the [approximate] pronunciation and that he anticipated Feynman to be equal learne\d. 3 out of 4 ain't bad ;0)
Periodic 17y ago
This has always been my understanding. Why would I state that I could care less about something which I am trying to express that I don't care much about at all? There's the theory that it implies you could care less, but that would require effort. I don't buy it. It's pretty easy not to care about something, in fact, I think it takes no effort at all. It's not like I'm straining myself by not caring about Joe Smith's new job in northern Minnesota. In fact, I couldn't care less.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- hughprime 17y ago
  In fact, starting now I think I'm going to start using "I could care less" liberally to communicate its literal meaning. Frinstance: "My car broke down, and I could care less!" "I broke my finger, and I could care less!" "My girlfriend left me for being so goddamn pedantic all the time, and I could care less!"
  - camccann 17y ago
    "My girlfriend left me for being so goddamn pedantic all the time, and I could care less!" I wonder if there's an opportunity to be had in creating a dating site for linguistic pedants, purists, and grammar nazis. I'm thinking a required literacy test to join, and auto-banning the account of anyone who commits more than some threshold limit of grammatical errors. </probably joking>
    - hughprime 17y ago
      The personal ads in the London Review of Books might fit your needs. I was browsing the book mentioned in this article last week: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6592990 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6592990
TrevorJ 17y ago
I think the key metric is that useful grammatical suggestions are ones that make the communication more clear. At the end of the day, clarity should be the focus. It bothers me when people make silly grammatical errors, but many of them end up in the final text because our minds auto-correct for them and as such they rarely pose much of a problem in terms of actual clarity.
- jwhite 17y ago
  I agree with you. The reason such errors worry me, even if clarity isn't an issue, is that the next generation reads these incorrect texts and assumes that everything they read was written correctly. As a consequence these kids misunderstand the grammar of their language. Lack of formal grammar training doesn't help. Because language is an important tool for thinking, degraded language skills lead to degraded thinking. The example that always gets me foaming at the mouth is the persistent confusion of "are" and "our" in online forums, just because they sound similar in an American accent.
noonespecial 17y ago
It is important to write correctly. If you allow "I could care less" to congeal on top of "I couldn't care less" in one big idiomatic mess, you more or less lose the ability to express "I could care less". A more extreme example that also bothers me to no end is "begs the question." Its now quite impossible to use this phrase to call out the logic error to which it originally referred as it is now used interchangeably with "raises the question". When I want to call the error, I have to do a mini exposition on circular reasoning. I feel cheated out of this fine piece of language. There's a difference between nazism and simply insisting on correctness. I also commend.
- nooloop 17y ago
  I find that the form, "begging the question", still gets the point across.
  - jmmcd 17y ago
    It gets a different point across.
- alex_c 17y ago
  That's because the correct meaning of "begging the question" is completely non-intuitive. I challenge anyone to give me a good explanation of how the meaning of the term is in any way related to the meaning of the English words "begging the question", other than "well, that's what the Latin term translates to." I'm bothered by people who say "could care less", but I'm bothered even more by people who insist on "correcting" use of the phrase "begging the question". This begs the question, am I a hypocrite?
  - Confusion 17y ago
    No, you're not a hypocrite, but you are being inconsistent. That's not necessarily a bad thing, unless it leads to hypocrisy. There's a fine line between defending a point of view and defending it in such a way that you really can't reasonably defend the opposite point of view anymore.
  - 17y ago
alnayyir 17y ago
I love you both.

by mcantor 17y ago

thismat 17y ago

Spot on sir. I up voted the both of you as this is a huge irk or mine as well. Say what you mean, don't just rehash phrases you've heard before! This says a lot about how much thought we put into what we're saying and hearing, as I've seen and heard this on all types of media, from TV, movies, radio, books...

redorb 17y ago
I'll bite: I couldn't care less about anyones irk's - You get the point of what he was trying to say .... so why point out the difference? - I think its a smug ass hole thing to do. edit: This comment also puts me in that category.
- mcantor 17y ago
  I upvoted you because it is a smug, asinine thing to do, but I disagree with your implication that he thus should not have done it. However, because this is One Of Those Issues, I have split my reply into two conceptual sections: Objective: It seems that the world is largely organized into two classes of people: those who care about precision of speech beyond the simple need for making someone else understand your point, and those who believe that as long as everyone is on the same page, then for God's sake, it bears no further discussion. "I could care less" apologists are in the latter group, clearly, but it is important for both groups to exist and speak up. Of course, this means that while I disagree that he shouldn't have mentioned it, I agree that you should have criticised him for mentioning it. Subjective: My disgust with "I could care less" goes beyond mere imprecision of speech. There are people in this HN thread claiming that when someone says "I could care less," they mean "I could care less, but it would require effort." I think that this is definitely not what most people think they are saying when they say "I could care less." I think most people are trying to express, "I couldn't care less even if I tried," but are failing to express that because they are simply regurgitating things they have already heard. This is a pernicious habit indicative of a deeper lack of thoughtfulness and creativity in our society, and it drives me completely crazy.
  - redorb 17y ago
    what a diplomat (seriously) - thanks for your analysis I can now see the other side a bit easier.
  - thismat 17y ago
    I don't point this out to people for the reason stated. It does irk me, but I keep my peace, even when it's my own brother. That being said, this is a forum that is detailed and critical by nature, I don't feel it's smug to voice a subjective opinion on the matter. Still, you're right, it can be(and most likely is in most situations), a very rude and smug thing to do, but it all depends on the person as well. Do they receive critical comments well? Will they be enlightened because of it?
  - dirkstoop 17y ago
    I agree with you in broad lines but would like to raise one nuance that I find essential to the ongoing debate. Many now popular constructs in contemporary language have come forth from – at their time – seemingly illogical mutations. By banning all seemingly illogical new ways of saying things, or in other words: only letting new constructs that make more sense pass unopposed, we effectively kill a language. A language that allows for only the most logical and most effective of ways to express ideas has no room for creativity. (I'm referring to creativity with the language, as in playing with the language, e.g. stand up comedy or creative writing; it is perfectly possible to be creative using a dead language, or to write beautiful – syntactically correct – code.) Considering how evolution seems to work, such a 'pure' language is inevitably where we'll end up if we kill off all seemingly illogical new constructs. To bring my point back to where I started: There are not two groups, one that cares about precision of speech and one that doesn't. I understand you deliberately simplified your explanation, there are never 'two groups', but I think there's another, more interesting, way to view this difference beyond just stating that there obviously must be a continuum between two extremes. I pose that we all have a certain tolerance level for how incorrect a construct may be with regard to how we value its addition to the language (is it merely a lame bastardization, like "I could care less", or does it have actual merit, like "to upvote") for us to accept or reject that construct. If we shoot down "I could care less" only because it's unsound – or if you prefer, incorrect or imprecise – we may be smug, but we are definitely being reckless and are doing the language a big disfavor. If, instead, we point at this wart in someone's copy because its (1) unsound and (2) lacks any merit over the correct version, I don't think that's smug, let alone asinine, at all.
- yan 17y ago
  "Richard Feynman, [Murray] Gell-Mann's chief competitor for the title of the World's Smartest Man but a stranger to pretension, once encountered Gell-Mann in the hall outside their offices at Caltech and asked him where he had been on a recent trip; 'Moon-TRAY-ALGH!' Gell-Mann responded in a French accent so thick that he sounded as if he were strangling. Feynman - who, like Gell-Mann, was born in New York City - had no idea what he was talking about. 'Don't you think,' he asked Gell-Mann, when at length he had ascertained that Gell-Mann was saying 'Montreal,' 'that the purpose of language is communication?'"
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    A fine anecdote - Gell-Mann was of course communicating not only that he had been to Montreal, but also that it was a French name, that he new the [approximate] pronunciation and that he anticipated Feynman to be equal learne\d. 3 out of 4 ain't bad ;0)

Periodic 17y ago

This has always been my understanding. Why would I state that I could care less about something which I am trying to express that I don't care much about at all? There's the theory that it implies you could care less, but that would require effort. I don't buy it. It's pretty easy not to care about something, in fact, I think it takes no effort at all. It's not like I'm straining myself by not caring about Joe Smith's new job in northern Minnesota. In fact, I couldn't care less.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
hughprime 17y ago
In fact, starting now I think I'm going to start using "I could care less" liberally to communicate its literal meaning. Frinstance: "My car broke down, and I could care less!" "I broke my finger, and I could care less!" "My girlfriend left me for being so goddamn pedantic all the time, and I could care less!"
- camccann 17y ago
  "My girlfriend left me for being so goddamn pedantic all the time, and I could care less!" I wonder if there's an opportunity to be had in creating a dating site for linguistic pedants, purists, and grammar nazis. I'm thinking a required literacy test to join, and auto-banning the account of anyone who commits more than some threshold limit of grammatical errors. </probably joking>
  - hughprime 17y ago
    The personal ads in the London Review of Books might fit your needs. I was browsing the book mentioned in this article last week: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6592990 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6592990

TrevorJ 17y ago

I think the key metric is that useful grammatical suggestions are ones that make the communication more clear. At the end of the day, clarity should be the focus. It bothers me when people make silly grammatical errors, but many of them end up in the final text because our minds auto-correct for them and as such they rarely pose much of a problem in terms of actual clarity.

jwhite 17y ago
I agree with you. The reason such errors worry me, even if clarity isn't an issue, is that the next generation reads these incorrect texts and assumes that everything they read was written correctly. As a consequence these kids misunderstand the grammar of their language. Lack of formal grammar training doesn't help. Because language is an important tool for thinking, degraded language skills lead to degraded thinking. The example that always gets me foaming at the mouth is the persistent confusion of "are" and "our" in online forums, just because they sound similar in an American accent.

noonespecial 17y ago

It is important to write correctly. If you allow "I could care less" to congeal on top of "I couldn't care less" in one big idiomatic mess, you more or less lose the ability to express "I could care less". A more extreme example that also bothers me to no end is "begs the question." Its now quite impossible to use this phrase to call out the logic error to which it originally referred as it is now used interchangeably with "raises the question". When I want to call the error, I have to do a mini exposition on circular reasoning. I feel cheated out of this fine piece of language. There's a difference between nazism and simply insisting on correctness. I also commend.

nooloop 17y ago
I find that the form, "begging the question", still gets the point across.
- jmmcd 17y ago
  It gets a different point across.
alex_c 17y ago
That's because the correct meaning of "begging the question" is completely non-intuitive. I challenge anyone to give me a good explanation of how the meaning of the term is in any way related to the meaning of the English words "begging the question", other than "well, that's what the Latin term translates to." I'm bothered by people who say "could care less", but I'm bothered even more by people who insist on "correcting" use of the phrase "begging the question". This begs the question, am I a hypocrite?
- Confusion 17y ago
  No, you're not a hypocrite, but you are being inconsistent. That's not necessarily a bad thing, unless it leads to hypocrisy. There's a fine line between defending a point of view and defending it in such a way that you really can't reasonably defend the opposite point of view anymore.
- 17y ago

alnayyir 17y ago

I love you both.