3 ms·

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 sp

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
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. I mean with respect to this specific observation. If in five years time nobody ever says "I could care less" then I don't believe people's current use of "I could care less" constitutes a transition in the language, I believe it constitutes incorrectness. My point is that transition in language is only observable after the fact. If I start calling apples "coconuts", and it doesn't catch on, then that's just mean speaking incorrectly. If it does catch on then it's the start of a transition. But which of the two it is is impossible to say until much later.
tome 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. By declaring anything I'm introducing the entire philosophical question of what any word I use means. We generally omit details of relative unimportance. In this case I suppose you think that the definition of "wrong" is very important to the discussion, whilst I think that the people I generally want to communicate with have a shared understanding of that concept. We don't really have enough agreement over basic principles to continue the discussion.
tome 17y ago
It does not impede understanding because the idiomatic usage is pronounced differently. There is no confusion and no ambiguity. I've never heard it pronounced because we don't use that phrase in Britain. It's always "I couldn't care less". It does lead to confusion when it's seen written. Could you describe the difference in pronunciation of "I could care less" used under the two different meanings?
- roundsquare 17y ago
  I'm from the US, and I don't think there is a difference in pronunciation. In fact, its gotten to the point where when someone says "I could care less" I generally ask them to clarify unless the meaning is made obvious by context. That being said, there is usually sufficient context (in my experience, admittetly anecdotal) to figure out the meaning.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  I so love grammar nazis. Imagine me saying that, except I really mean "I don't like grammar nazis at all". Now you've got the idea of the difference in inflexion.
tome 17y ago
Can you give me another example of where we use the word board in English to mean food? This is not a sufficient counterexample. The two cases are too different to be compared. 1. Notice that in the "care less" example, it is the phrase that has changed, whilst the surrounding language has remained the same, whilst in the "board" example the phrase has remained the same, whilst the surrounding language has changed. 2. "Room and board" is not in popular usage whilst "I could care less" is (as far as I understand). Thus the potential for confusion is greater. 3. "Room and board" has a long established use. The use of "could care less" is much more recent. You might have a point, but you'll have to find a closer example to convince me. I could ask you never use the phrase room and board again. If you found the phrase confused you, I'd comply. I'm not asking an authority to change the general usage of "I could care less". I'm suggesting that it's worth noticing that a change has occurred, that the change conflicts with literal interpretation, and that the people I communicate with could, for clarity, use the original version.
- codyrobbins 17y ago
  Notice that in the "care less" example, it is the phrase that has changed, whilst the surrounding language has remained the same, whilst in the "board" example the phrase has remained the same, whilst the surrounding language has changed. I used room and board for the sake of argument because I felt it was easy to understand. It may be true that the meaning of could care less has changed, but Pinker’s analysis is that it has not — it always meant the opposite of its literal interpretation. You really can’t imagine some kid intoning in a sickly sarcastic voice to their parents, ‘Oh, I could SO care less!’? You must realize the kind of massive influence youth subcultures have on the language, and from there it’s really not a big leap to image how a usage could enter the language that means the opposite of its literal interpretation. "Room and board" is not in popular usage whilst "I could care less" is (as far as I understand). Thus the potential for confusion is greater. Completely disagree. A quick look at the number of hits in Google’s index shows that they’re both in common use: 2,220,000 for "could care less” 1,960,000 for "room and board" Anecdotal, but telling. If you really wanted me to, I could do a corpus search in the Corpus of Contemporary American English, but I expect the results would be about the same. "Room and board" has a long established use. The use of "could care less" is much more recent. I checked the OED and could care less seems to have been in use since the 1960s. Therefore, both phrases have been in use since well before I was born. So, for me, and most people who aren’t really old, they’re both completely established. If you found the phrase confused you, I'd comply. The crux, though, is that it would still be in the language. Just because you stop producing it doesn’t mean it’s been wiped from existence. If someone came up to you and used it, you couldn’t help but understand what they just said to you. More importantly, though, there’s no reason why you should stop using perfectly legitimate language just because someone else says it doesn’t make sense, but when it’s obvious that it does make sense, because everyone understands you when you say it.

tome 17y ago

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. I mean with respect to this specific observation. If in five years time nobody ever says "I could care less" then I don't believe people's current use of "I could care less" constitutes a transition in the language, I believe it constitutes incorrectness. My point is that transition in language is only observable after the fact. If I start calling apples "coconuts", and it doesn't catch on, then that's just mean speaking incorrectly. If it does catch on then it's the start of a transition. But which of the two it is is impossible to say until much later.

tome 17y ago

It does not impede understanding because the idiomatic usage is pronounced differently. There is no confusion and no ambiguity. I've never heard it pronounced because we don't use that phrase in Britain. It's always "I couldn't care less". It does lead to confusion when it's seen written. Could you describe the difference in pronunciation of "I could care less" used under the two different meanings?

roundsquare 17y ago
I'm from the US, and I don't think there is a difference in pronunciation. In fact, its gotten to the point where when someone says "I could care less" I generally ask them to clarify unless the meaning is made obvious by context. That being said, there is usually sufficient context (in my experience, admittetly anecdotal) to figure out the meaning.
pbhjpbhj 17y ago
I so love grammar nazis. Imagine me saying that, except I really mean "I don't like grammar nazis at all". Now you've got the idea of the difference in inflexion.

tome 17y ago

Can you give me another example of where we use the word board in English to mean food? This is not a sufficient counterexample. The two cases are too different to be compared. 1. Notice that in the "care less" example, it is the phrase that has changed, whilst the surrounding language has remained the same, whilst in the "board" example the phrase has remained the same, whilst the surrounding language has changed. 2. "Room and board" is not in popular usage whilst "I could care less" is (as far as I understand). Thus the potential for confusion is greater. 3. "Room and board" has a long established use. The use of "could care less" is much more recent. You might have a point, but you'll have to find a closer example to convince me. I could ask you never use the phrase room and board again. If you found the phrase confused you, I'd comply. I'm not asking an authority to change the general usage of "I could care less". I'm suggesting that it's worth noticing that a change has occurred, that the change conflicts with literal interpretation, and that the people I communicate with could, for clarity, use the original version.

codyrobbins 17y ago
Notice that in the "care less" example, it is the phrase that has changed, whilst the surrounding language has remained the same, whilst in the "board" example the phrase has remained the same, whilst the surrounding language has changed. I used room and board for the sake of argument because I felt it was easy to understand. It may be true that the meaning of could care less has changed, but Pinker’s analysis is that it has not — it always meant the opposite of its literal interpretation. You really can’t imagine some kid intoning in a sickly sarcastic voice to their parents, ‘Oh, I could SO care less!’? You must realize the kind of massive influence youth subcultures have on the language, and from there it’s really not a big leap to image how a usage could enter the language that means the opposite of its literal interpretation. "Room and board" is not in popular usage whilst "I could care less" is (as far as I understand). Thus the potential for confusion is greater. Completely disagree. A quick look at the number of hits in Google’s index shows that they’re both in common use: 2,220,000 for "could care less” 1,960,000 for "room and board" Anecdotal, but telling. If you really wanted me to, I could do a corpus search in the Corpus of Contemporary American English, but I expect the results would be about the same. "Room and board" has a long established use. The use of "could care less" is much more recent. I checked the OED and could care less seems to have been in use since the 1960s. Therefore, both phrases have been in use since well before I was born. So, for me, and most people who aren’t really old, they’re both completely established. If you found the phrase confused you, I'd comply. The crux, though, is that it would still be in the language. Just because you stop producing it doesn’t mean it’s been wiped from existence. If someone came up to you and used it, you couldn’t help but understand what they just said to you. More importantly, though, there’s no reason why you should stop using perfectly legitimate language just because someone else says it doesn’t make sense, but when it’s obvious that it does make sense, because everyone understands you when you say it.