8 ms·

The fact that language changes is often, as you do, presented as a reason and justification for a change under discussion. However, that is plainly false reason

The fact that language changes is often, as you do, presented as a reason and justification for a change under discussion. However, that is plainly false reasoning and we need solid arguments as to why we should accept certain changes. I resist change where I feel it makes a language less clear. There's nothing authoritarian or conservative about that stance: it's about plain usability. When someone says 'I could care less', where I expect 'I couldn't care less', then I get confused. I take extra time parsing and interpreting the sentence, for no reason whatsoever. There's already a perfectly applicable string of words to express what someone wants to express, which includes the 'not'. Leaving out the 'not' is not about 'creating a new idiom'. It's laziness or ignorance and both cannot be excused by 'meh, language changes'. Neither is a solid argument to change a language. I appreciate your arguments in favor of 'irregardless', 'room and board' and the blackbird and found them enlightning, but I fail to see how these apply to 'I could care less' or 'begging the question'. Those two can be explained just fine by laziness and ignorance on the part of the user.

codyrobbins 17y ago
I’m not presenting it as a reason or justification, but as a fact. You, personally, are unable to engineer the course of the language, and your resistance to a change does not stop the change from occurring. The language does not need your acceptance for change to occur. It may seem to you like it’s changing for no reason whatsoever, but that’s only because — sitting there in your armchair — you’re unable to come up with a good reason off the top of your head. Saying that it takes you longer to parse the sentence is anecdotal nonsense, because there’s no way for you to measure that without doing a controlled psycholinguistics experiment. What I said was fairly clear, but to be explicit, room and board is relevant to could care less because it shows that forms can fossilize. It does not matter that board doesn’t mean ‘food’ anymore, just as it no longer matters that could care less means the opposite of what it would literally. You don’t mention my example of a little bird told me, but it is relevant because it shows that idioms do not have to be interpreted as the literal sum of their parts (and, in fact, by definition, aren’t). You’re missing the point of just about everything I originally said, and you really don’t address any of the arguments I brought up, other than to say you fail to understand them.
- tome 17y ago
  OK, so you're saying that the semantics of English have changed so that - "I could X" means "It is possible for me to X" - except where X == "care less", when the sentence means "It is not possible for me to X" Sounds mighty bizarre to me. A more simple interpretation is just that a lot of people speak English wrong.
  - codyrobbins 17y ago
    No, that’s not really what I’m saying at all. Human language is not simply a series of control paths that branch the way you’ve described. That’s exactly how people tried to program computers to understand language 50 years ago, and what resulted is toy things like Eliza. What I said is that the two uses are entirely different words, because they’re pronounced differently. You’re right that it’s bizarre — that’s why no one knows how language works yet. Taking the stance that people speak English ‘wrong’ is not a simple interpretation, because it leads to the following question: please define what ‘wrong’ means.
    - tome 17y ago
      I agree that the study of linguistic phenomena is a deep and interesting subject which humanity has only scraped the surface of. However, I'm more inclined to have a pratically based discussion than a philosophically based one, where we risk infinite regress by asking each other to define the words that we use. Can you give me another example where the utterance "I could X" means "It's not possible for me to X"? If not then I argue that the change in usage adds unnecessary complexity to the language that makes it harder to understand. It doesn't matter how this phenomenon is to be understood in terms of sophisticated linguistic theories; at a basic and practical level it impedes understanding. Simply put, we may or may not be going through a period of transition in the language; it will be impossible to tell until much later. However I do know that during the transition those speakers who are used to the traditional form "I couldn't care less" have to work harder to understand when "I could care less" is used to express the same meaning.
      - 17y ago
pbhjpbhj 17y ago
"I could care less" is possibly a new idiom, an abbreviation of "I could care less, but I don't". On petitio principii, please see my other comment.

codyrobbins 17y ago

I’m not presenting it as a reason or justification, but as a fact. You, personally, are unable to engineer the course of the language, and your resistance to a change does not stop the change from occurring. The language does not need your acceptance for change to occur. It may seem to you like it’s changing for no reason whatsoever, but that’s only because — sitting there in your armchair — you’re unable to come up with a good reason off the top of your head. Saying that it takes you longer to parse the sentence is anecdotal nonsense, because there’s no way for you to measure that without doing a controlled psycholinguistics experiment. What I said was fairly clear, but to be explicit, room and board is relevant to could care less because it shows that forms can fossilize. It does not matter that board doesn’t mean ‘food’ anymore, just as it no longer matters that could care less means the opposite of what it would literally. You don’t mention my example of a little bird told me, but it is relevant because it shows that idioms do not have to be interpreted as the literal sum of their parts (and, in fact, by definition, aren’t). You’re missing the point of just about everything I originally said, and you really don’t address any of the arguments I brought up, other than to say you fail to understand them.

tome 17y ago
OK, so you're saying that the semantics of English have changed so that - "I could X" means "It is possible for me to X" - except where X == "care less", when the sentence means "It is not possible for me to X" Sounds mighty bizarre to me. A more simple interpretation is just that a lot of people speak English wrong.
- codyrobbins 17y ago
  No, that’s not really what I’m saying at all. Human language is not simply a series of control paths that branch the way you’ve described. That’s exactly how people tried to program computers to understand language 50 years ago, and what resulted is toy things like Eliza. What I said is that the two uses are entirely different words, because they’re pronounced differently. You’re right that it’s bizarre — that’s why no one knows how language works yet. Taking the stance that people speak English ‘wrong’ is not a simple interpretation, because it leads to the following question: please define what ‘wrong’ means.
  - tome 17y ago
    I agree that the study of linguistic phenomena is a deep and interesting subject which humanity has only scraped the surface of. However, I'm more inclined to have a pratically based discussion than a philosophically based one, where we risk infinite regress by asking each other to define the words that we use. Can you give me another example where the utterance "I could X" means "It's not possible for me to X"? If not then I argue that the change in usage adds unnecessary complexity to the language that makes it harder to understand. It doesn't matter how this phenomenon is to be understood in terms of sophisticated linguistic theories; at a basic and practical level it impedes understanding. Simply put, we may or may not be going through a period of transition in the language; it will be impossible to tell until much later. However I do know that during the transition those speakers who are used to the traditional form "I couldn't care less" have to work harder to understand when "I could care less" is used to express the same meaning.
    - 17y ago

pbhjpbhj 17y ago

"I could care less" is possibly a new idiom, an abbreviation of "I could care less, but I don't". On petitio principii, please see my other comment.