4 ms·

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

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
  Confusion never used the word 'wrong' actually. You might be thinking of me.
  - codyrobbins 17y ago
    He said people were lazy and ignorant for using could care less. I’d consider that equivalent to calling them wrong. You’re just nit-picking.
    - tome 17y ago
      Part of our difficulty to understand each other may be that "wrong" is often used to imply some sort of value judgment. I should stress I'm not using it in that way, just as a statement of fact. I would strongly assert that X years ago, when "I couldn't care less" was the only popularly used version, saying "I could care less" was both lazy and ignorant: lazy because it's dropping a syllable for the ease of the speaker despite making it more difficult for the listener; ignorant because the speaker doesn't realise they're doing it. Whether it's lazy and ignorant now is a harder question to answer. I'm not familiar with North American usage of the phrase.
      - codyrobbins 17y ago
        I guess my comments may come across as slightly antagonistic, but I don’t mean them that way at all. I’m just very excited about the topic of language in general. I should tell you that I have a masters degree in linguistics, so I’m not pulling any of this out of thin air. Most of the arguments I’ve made are more or less generally understood among the linguistic community. Most of the objections and issues you are raising are the kind of questions that are dealt with in undergraduate linguistics courses. I don’t have time to continue discussing this today unfortunately, but if you’re really interested in this stuff, you should reader The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker. He does a far better job at systematically explaining these issues than I do. Something like The Foundations of Language by Jackendoff is much more technical but also a very good introduction. http://www.amazon.com/Language-Instinct-Steven-Pinker/dp/0060976519 http://www.amazon.com/Language-Instinct-Steven-Pinker/dp/006... http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Language-Meaning-Grammar-Evolution/dp/0198270127 http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Language-Meaning-Grammar-E...

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
Confusion never used the word 'wrong' actually. You might be thinking of me.
- codyrobbins 17y ago
  He said people were lazy and ignorant for using could care less. I’d consider that equivalent to calling them wrong. You’re just nit-picking.
  - tome 17y ago
    Part of our difficulty to understand each other may be that "wrong" is often used to imply some sort of value judgment. I should stress I'm not using it in that way, just as a statement of fact. I would strongly assert that X years ago, when "I couldn't care less" was the only popularly used version, saying "I could care less" was both lazy and ignorant: lazy because it's dropping a syllable for the ease of the speaker despite making it more difficult for the listener; ignorant because the speaker doesn't realise they're doing it. Whether it's lazy and ignorant now is a harder question to answer. I'm not familiar with North American usage of the phrase.
    - codyrobbins 17y ago
      I guess my comments may come across as slightly antagonistic, but I don’t mean them that way at all. I’m just very excited about the topic of language in general. I should tell you that I have a masters degree in linguistics, so I’m not pulling any of this out of thin air. Most of the arguments I’ve made are more or less generally understood among the linguistic community. Most of the objections and issues you are raising are the kind of questions that are dealt with in undergraduate linguistics courses. I don’t have time to continue discussing this today unfortunately, but if you’re really interested in this stuff, you should reader The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker. He does a far better job at systematically explaining these issues than I do. Something like The Foundations of Language by Jackendoff is much more technical but also a very good introduction. http://www.amazon.com/Language-Instinct-Steven-Pinker/dp/0060976519 http://www.amazon.com/Language-Instinct-Steven-Pinker/dp/006... http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Language-Meaning-Grammar-Evolution/dp/0198270127 http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Language-Meaning-Grammar-E...