5 ms·

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

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.
    - codyrobbins 17y ago
      It’s funny, because you’re not inclined to have a practical discussion rather than a philosophical one — my entire point is that by declaring that people are speaking the language ‘wrong’, you are yourself introducing the entire philosophical question of what ‘wrong’ means. You can’t say people are speaking the language wrong unless you’re ready to define what ‘wrong’ means. And I think you’ve realized that there’s no good way to answer that question. Can you give me another example of where we use the word board in English to mean food? If not, I could ask you never use the phrase room and board again. But that would be silly. It does not matter whether could care less is a one-off instance — it is an idiom and that is the entire point. It does not matter whether you argue that the phrase adds unnecessary complexity to the language: it is already in the language despite your objections, because people use it. There’s nothing you can do to change that. Language is what people say; if they say it, it’s language. It does not impede understanding because the idiomatic usage is pronounced differently. There is no confusion and no ambiguity. What you are saying simply isn’t the case. Finally, it’s not the case that we ‘may or may not’ be going through a period of transition in the language. Language change is always happening. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_change
tome 17y ago
He may be unable to engineer the course of the language, but he can influence the language used by those who want to communicate with him. Perhaps the original post can be understood as an attempt to influence the language used on Hacker News. If we end up speaking differently from the majority then so be it as long as we find our usage beneficial.
Confusion 17y ago
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. That's basically "you cannot prove there isn't a good reason". That's the case by definition. The burden for justifying the change lies with those supporting the change. Saying that it takes you longer to parse the sentence is anecdotal nonsense There is nothing anecdotal about my experience. If I have to blink and think twice about what someone is saying, then he is using nonstandard idiom. it shows that forms can fossilize That stuff can fossilize, doesn't mean we should let it fossilize. You're rehearsing the fallacy I was pointing out: 'could care less' is not fossilized and there is no bloody reason to allow it to fossilize. Moreover, you're comparing something that used to be standard idiom and has fossilized in that state with something that is changing and may fossilize in that new, changed state. The argument for the first rests entirely it's history and age, both of which the second lacks.
- codyrobbins 17y ago
  The burden for justifying the change lies with those supporting the change. You’re the one categorically claiming that the way people talk is somehow ‘wrong’. If you want to make that claim, you need to support it. Without going into highly technical details, I explained some ways why the usage could make sense. Your response was simply to say, as if declaring it somehow makes it true, that there is no reason for the usage. There is nothing anecdotal about my experience. If I have to blink and think twice about what someone is saying, then he is using nonstandard idiom. By definition your experience is anecdotal. I doubt you have to think twice when someone says it, but we’d have to subject you to an experiment to be sure. But simply put, there are so many cognitive biases that may potentially be at work that you really can’t reliably judge yourself whether it takes you longer to process. Sentence processing happens on the order of tens of milliseconds. That stuff can fossilize, doesn't mean we should let it fossilize. You’re assuming that you have some control over whether the use develops in the language. I’m saying that’s a flawed assumption and that you don’t. If you’re so sure the usage is wrong, it may be interesting to note how many hits there are for each phrase in Google’s index: 2,220,000 for "could care less" 1,410,000 for "couldn't care less" I readily admit that this, too, is anecdotal evidence. But it’s quite telling, no?

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.
  - codyrobbins 17y ago
    It’s funny, because you’re not inclined to have a practical discussion rather than a philosophical one — my entire point is that by declaring that people are speaking the language ‘wrong’, you are yourself introducing the entire philosophical question of what ‘wrong’ means. You can’t say people are speaking the language wrong unless you’re ready to define what ‘wrong’ means. And I think you’ve realized that there’s no good way to answer that question. Can you give me another example of where we use the word board in English to mean food? If not, I could ask you never use the phrase room and board again. But that would be silly. It does not matter whether could care less is a one-off instance — it is an idiom and that is the entire point. It does not matter whether you argue that the phrase adds unnecessary complexity to the language: it is already in the language despite your objections, because people use it. There’s nothing you can do to change that. Language is what people say; if they say it, it’s language. It does not impede understanding because the idiomatic usage is pronounced differently. There is no confusion and no ambiguity. What you are saying simply isn’t the case. Finally, it’s not the case that we ‘may or may not’ be going through a period of transition in the language. Language change is always happening. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_change

tome 17y ago

He may be unable to engineer the course of the language, but he can influence the language used by those who want to communicate with him. Perhaps the original post can be understood as an attempt to influence the language used on Hacker News. If we end up speaking differently from the majority then so be it as long as we find our usage beneficial.

Confusion 17y ago

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. That's basically "you cannot prove there isn't a good reason". That's the case by definition. The burden for justifying the change lies with those supporting the change. Saying that it takes you longer to parse the sentence is anecdotal nonsense There is nothing anecdotal about my experience. If I have to blink and think twice about what someone is saying, then he is using nonstandard idiom. it shows that forms can fossilize That stuff can fossilize, doesn't mean we should let it fossilize. You're rehearsing the fallacy I was pointing out: 'could care less' is not fossilized and there is no bloody reason to allow it to fossilize. Moreover, you're comparing something that used to be standard idiom and has fossilized in that state with something that is changing and may fossilize in that new, changed state. The argument for the first rests entirely it's history and age, both of which the second lacks.

codyrobbins 17y ago
The burden for justifying the change lies with those supporting the change. You’re the one categorically claiming that the way people talk is somehow ‘wrong’. If you want to make that claim, you need to support it. Without going into highly technical details, I explained some ways why the usage could make sense. Your response was simply to say, as if declaring it somehow makes it true, that there is no reason for the usage. There is nothing anecdotal about my experience. If I have to blink and think twice about what someone is saying, then he is using nonstandard idiom. By definition your experience is anecdotal. I doubt you have to think twice when someone says it, but we’d have to subject you to an experiment to be sure. But simply put, there are so many cognitive biases that may potentially be at work that you really can’t reliably judge yourself whether it takes you longer to process. Sentence processing happens on the order of tens of milliseconds. That stuff can fossilize, doesn't mean we should let it fossilize. You’re assuming that you have some control over whether the use develops in the language. I’m saying that’s a flawed assumption and that you don’t. If you’re so sure the usage is wrong, it may be interesting to note how many hits there are for each phrase in Google’s index: 2,220,000 for "could care less" 1,410,000 for "couldn't care less" I readily admit that this, too, is anecdotal evidence. But it’s quite telling, no?