Steve's Grammatical Observations #6: "I could care less"
tags:
Stumble ThisI'm tempted to put this in *music but I'll contain myself. Also: we could do with a *words or a *language channel, no?
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
It's kind of a regional thing.
blackest_eyes: Don't hurt yourself there.
... But what if you care so little that you don't even care to care less? ...
'Fraid not. This would mean there's some default level of caring about everything that you would have to go out of your way to reduce. Nuts to that: the default is zero, and that's the point at which you could not care less.
Thank you.
By saying that you could care less, you are inferring that you already don't care. It's the equivalent of saying "I could care less [than I already do]." It's a fancy way of saying you don't care simply by stating the capacity to care less, which you would never state if you did care. I am an English grad, if you want to go after something stupid, go after oxymoronic inventions from illiterate people like "irregardless."
That's not entirely true. By saying that you could care less DOES NOT mean you are inferring that you already don't care. Who's to say what level of caring you're at during that moment?
What if you cared tremendously? Then you can easily say you could care less, because, well, there's plenty less to care about if you cared a ton.
By saying "I could care less" implies that there is less caring to be had, no matter where you stand on the caring spectrum.
A bong?..
So saying "I could care less" doesn't necessarily imply "I really don't care." As brycewi said, you could care so much that you could care less and still care a lot. But all I'm saying is that you COULD mean "I really don't care" without being grammatically incorrect. You could be making a very general statement that you don't care to adjust your level of caring. You just go with whatever comes naturally.
I'm ... kinda hot for this guy... >.> He's fricking cute.
Is it to me that you refer, shawtay?
What's he holding in his hand?!
A bong?..
Close, it's a bowl from an Arizer Extreme vaporizer. Arizer
Not that I'd know anything about that....
When you say that you could care less, you're saying that you currently care (because if you didn't care at all, you would be unable to care any less).
But when you say that you could not care less, you're saying that you currently don't care at all.
Consider the converse, speaking in positive instead of negative terms. E.g., you want to tell your sweetheart how full of love you are for her. Would you tell her, "I could love you more," or would you tell her "I could not love you more?"
It's exactly like our pothead friend in the video said: Think of your feelings like water and the possible amount of feeling you can have as a bucket. If the bucket is full to the brim with water, you could not care any more (it would overflow). If the bucket is bone dry, you could not care any less (you would have to start chipping away at the bucket). If the water level is anywhere in between, you could care less and you could also care more.
It's not brain surgery, folks.
^ But you must care to some degree to be discussing the subject at all.
now i know ur joking, cuz thats retarded as fuck
>> ^rougy:
^ But you must care to some degree to be discussing the subject at all.
now i know ur joking, cuz thats retarded as fuck
I could take the time to answer you, but to be honest, I could care less.
^ But you must care to some degree to be discussing the subject at all.
Obviously. Who said "I couldn't care less" in reference to the subject? No one.
>> ^rougy:
^ But you must care to some degree to be discussing the subject at all.
Obviously. Who said "I couldn't care less" in reference to the subject? No one.
Okay, so what exactly could they not care less about if it were not the subject?
I thought you were being arch by pointing out that we COULD indeed care less about THIS subject, the defense of the English language.
If you like saying it wrong because of the harsh emphasis, I totally get that. But don't try to defend it as possibly being logical. It's not.
It's the opposite of a double negative. People sometimes use double negatives for emphasis or because of regional dialects, but nobody is defending it as possibly being grammatically correct.
This example drops the negative rather than doubling it, but the effect is the same. The emotion is emphasized, but the grammar is wrong.
Either it annoys you or it doesn't, but please stop defending it as logical.
That's not entirely true. By saying that you could care less DOES NOT mean you are inferring that you already don't care. Who's to say what level of caring you're at during that moment?
What if you cared tremendously? Then you can easily say you could care less, because, well, there's plenty less to care about if you cared a ton.
By saying "I could care less" implies that there is less caring to be had, no matter where you stand on the caring spectrum.
Of course it fucking does, why in the hell would you state your capacity if you cared? If you cared, you would never answer without stating your preference.
"Hey, do you care where we eat?"
No. I couldn't care less. I don't care. (negative conveys no preference)
I could care less. (degree without preference infers no preference)
Yes. (affirmative with no preference, you will be asked your preference and failing to give that, you will be conveying that you have no preference)
"Hey, do you care where we eat?"
I want McDonalds. (stated preference that infers affirmative)
Yes, I want McDonalds. (affirmative + stated preference)
If you do care enough to cast a vote, you will cast it. If you don't care enough to cast a vote, you won't cast it. How much someone says they care is irrelevant information, all you care about as the speaker is whether they care ENOUGH to influence the choice that is made. Since "I could care less" conveys that as well as anything lacking a stated preference, it is perfectly acceptable to use.
Even stupider is that the people criticizing it are calling it "bad grammar." A grammatical problem is when syntax rules are not followed. "I and he is both named Bob" is a grammatical issue. This is not. If you think a grammatically correct phrase poorly conveys what the speaker is intending, so be it, but that does not make it a grammatical problem.
>> ^lucky760
Consider the converse, speaking in positive instead of negative terms. E.g., you want to tell your sweetheart how full of love you are for her. Would you tell her, "I could love you more," or would you tell her "I could not love you more?"
"I could care more" is the equivalent of "I could care less" and infers a degree of not caring, because any response inferring that you care must include the vote you supposedly cared to give. The phrase we are discussing is almost always used in the context of a selection of choices, whereas your example deals only with caring itself. It is rarely used in that context.
>> ^lucky760
It's not brain surgery, folks.
Apparently, it is for you. Next time, don't mock an English graduate unless you are damn sure you are right.
Actually saying "I could care less" is justified, if you think about it. You want to say "I don't care" right? But what if you care so little that you don't even care to care less? Then it would be accurate to say "I could care less." You could care less - but you don't, because that's how much you don't fucking care.
Hahahahahaha!
Genius, man.
In fact, you're right. Caring less is a form of CARING MORE. Praise be the Paraclete!
Somebody should auto-tune this fellow.
I've always considered the phrase to be an ironic one, of course grammatically it doesn't make any sense, per say, but I consider it sorta like when you give a false compliment "Yeah that was REALLY smart of you, douchebag" meaning you didn't think it was smart at all. By saying "I could care less" you are actually saying you could NOT care less if you tried. Since English isn't my first language I can't really tell, but that's my 2 cents anyway.
Once again, grammar has nothing to do with comprehension. I could walk into a store and say with perfect grammar: "My pelican needs a hot bath beside the bulldozer." But I doubt anyone will understand what I mean. "I could care less" isn't bad grammar or nonsense.
Less?
It's a grammatically sound statement. It's just stupidly shortened, and stupid in the context it's used. (I always thought it was just the fact that a lot of people swallow the "nt" sound at the end of "couldn't", not that they actually say "I could care less".)
>> ^iNqz:
What's he holding in his hand?!
A bong?..
Close, it's a bowl from an Arizer Extreme vaporizer. Arizer
Not that I'd know anything about that....
Or just a glass on glass stem piece/diffuser.
As an example, I might point you to the definition of the word "infer."
No matter how much inflection or nuance or meaning you want to throw at the phrase, "I could care less" structurally does not imply what is intended when it's typically used.
"I could care less" does NOT convey a degree of caring, that's the whole point. It's ambiguous as to how much the speaker cares. It technically means "I care some." Some unstated amount greater than zero.
I learnt my English in the trenches.
0 being "not at all"
5 being "somewhat"
10 being "with every fiber of my being"
If you care at level 5, then you could care less, but you could also care more.
If you care at level 10, you could care less, but you couldn't care more.
If you care at level 0, you couldn't care less, but you could care more.
"could care less" and "could care more" may both be true, but they are certainly not equal, unless you are speaking purely about the sentence structure, which nobody else is. (And this may be the problem.)
A "default" level of caring would be nil. You can't care about something you don't know anything about, and once you know something about it, your level of caring would appear somewhere on the scale. For example, I didn't care about that rock buried in the yard next door until someone dug it up and threw it at my house.
I believe you are conflating two points of a conversation. Take the example "Where do you want to eat?" If a person were to respond "I could care less", they typically mean "I care enough to answer your question, but I don't care where we eat." Two separate levels of caring there. In regards to the conversation, the level of caring is greater than zero. But in regards to the question the caring level is zero, and the choice of words is incorrect for the desired meaning. Simply responding does not imply a level of caring in regard to the answer to the question.
However! I concede what may be the greater point here: that we are not talking about grammar so much as we are talking about logic. Errors in logic piss me off more than errors in grammar, now that I think about it, which is why I keep looking at this discussion.
"I could care less" is a grammatically correct statement which does not literally convey the intended meaning. I cannot think of an example of real world use where a person would use that phrase to convey the meaning of "I do care somewhat".
Those of you with the correct position, just say "you're retards" and walk away.
Banshee, stop tossing around the "English grad" thing like it's some kind of major accomplishment. A) English is one of the most common majors and B) Just because you studied literature does not mean you comprehend language.
Right, because writing about 100 formal papers on literature at a major university gives you roughly same exposure to language and its rules as a high school diploma or an Engineering degree. My bad, shouldn't have mentioned it.
As an example, I might point you to the definition of the word "infer."
Yep, mixed up imply/infer and didn't reread my post. Whoopee, what a tame and insanely common mistake. Notice how I can admit where I'm wrong instead of kicking the air like a mule.
No matter how much inflection or nuance or meaning you want to throw at the phrase, "I could care less" structurally does not imply what is intended when it's typically used.
What an amazingly thorough rebuttal, just stubbornly asserting the opposite without addressing the logic of my post. Why would anyone interpret that you cared enough to give a preference unless an actual preference followed? Explain. Your entire argument rests on this. For "I could care less" to imply caring when the opposite was intended, it has to be inferred that way by the person to whom it's spoken.
A common mistake and a big one. It also discredits your whole "English Major" trumpeting.
"What an amazingly thorough rebuttal, just stubbornly asserting the opposite without addressing the logic of my post. Why would anyone interpret that you cared enough to give a preference unless an actual preference followed? Explain. Your entire argument rests on this. For "I could care less" to imply caring when the opposite was intended, it has to be inferred that way by the person to whom it's spoken."
I doon't have to write a dissertation (or 100 formal papers) to make a point, though I clearly have to illustrate it again, since you boiled it down to your point instead of mine.
Grammar is about structure, not what is implied (or inferred). So, yes, the speaker may intend to say they couldn't care less when they say, "I could care less," but that is not what they're saying, even if the listener understood what they meant. As another example, people may know what you mean when you use a double negative, that doesn't make it correct.
Oh, this discussion annoys the heck outta me. I could be less annoyed.
HBAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!1
Yes, and "language" is about what is implied and what is inferred. Grammar is not the only factor involved in communication.
Language is the systematic creation and usage of systems of symbols —each referring to linguistic concepts with semantic or logical or otherwise expressive meanings.
Communication is the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs. Communication sometimes has nothing to do with grammar.
That being said, it bugs the CRAP outta me when somebody says, "I could care less."
In reply to this comment by Bullwinkle:
"Yep, mixed up imply/infer and didn't reread my post. Whoopee, what a tame and insanely common mistake. Notice how I can admit where I'm wrong instead of kicking the air like a mule."
A common mistake and a big one. It also discredits your whole "English Major" trumpeting.
"What an amazingly thorough rebuttal, just stubbornly asserting the opposite without addressing the logic of my post. Why would anyone interpret that you cared enough to give a preference unless an actual preference followed? Explain. Your entire argument rests on this. For "I could care less" to imply caring when the opposite was intended, it has to be inferred that way by the person to whom it's spoken."
I doon't have to write a dissertation (or 100 formal papers) to make a point, though I clearly have to illustrate it again, since you boiled it down to your point instead of mine.
Grammar is about structure, not what is implied (or inferred). So, yes, the speaker may intend to say they couldn't care less when they say, "I could care less," but that is not what they're saying, even if the listener understood what they meant. As another example, people may know what you mean when you use a double negative, that doesn't make it correct.
A common mistake and a big one. It also discredits your whole "English Major" trumpeting.
Humans make errors regardless of skill level, and frankly, that is an easier one for an advanced person to make than many others on first drafts. It doesn't discredit a damn thing any more than your capitalization of "Major" discredits you. What you've done is a logical fallacy in debate. Because you lacked a rebuttal, you tried to find something I was wrong about then used the associative property to say all else must then be wrong.
>> ^Bullwinkle
I doon't have to write a dissertation (or 100 formal papers) to make a point, though I clearly have to illustrate it again, since you boiled it down to your point instead of mine.
Grammar is about structure, not what is implied (or inferred). So, yes, the speaker may intend to say they couldn't care less when they say, "I could care less," but that is not what they're saying, even if the listener understood what they meant.
Grammar has nothing to do with this and I already admonished those who did, so stop floundering. Whenever this phrase is used, it is a whimsical way of saying they're in danger of caring less than they already do. It is never misinterpreted by the listener as the opposite and for good reason. You would never confess your capacity to care more or less, or fail to state a preference if you cared enough to give one. I can't even believe we're arguing about something so idiomatic. Idioms don't have to be literal, they simply to have to be interpreted for what they intend to convey.
You're the only one floundering here, trying to shove your loose interpretation of poorly spoken words down the throats of everyone with any sense who is explaining rather simply the actual meaning of an often wrongly worded phrase. The bottom line is, in almost every situation, people should say "I couldn't care less" when they actually say "I could care less."
Most people just don't care enough about the words they speak to analyze or understand their meaning. Then, of course, there's that rare 0.01% of wackos who do understand but still try to defend, pervert, and proliferate twisted words because they have a false sense of entitlement and a magnificently inflated ego. These are the nuts who'd probably also try to convince you that saying "I don't not care" is also a valid way to express your lack of interest in something. "Sure it am not not a double negative and sure the speaker are actually saying it cares, but hey that am okay. You can figuring it out what they could mean any ways, so we should encourage every people to speak those way! Hooray for bastardization of these Ynglish lang wedges!" Let's encourage everyone to exercise incorrect language because, hey, everyone else can figure out what they mean anyway, right? GMAFB.
It is never misinterpreted by the listener
This is not true at all. I forget the particular song, but on Green Day's American Idiot album, a line says something like "I could care less" and I've always wondered and will never know if he added stress to the phrase to make it clear he's speaking literally about actually caring or if that stress was just for the melody and he actually misspoke as most people do and he really does not care.
Whenever this phrase is used, it is a whimsical way of saying they're in danger of caring less than they already do.
When someone exclaims, "I could care less if we water board George W.," what they're really saying is, "I'm in danger of caring less than I already do if we water board Old Georgie. Everyone pay close attention to the needle on my caring gauge because I think it's about to drop a little bit!" Right. You just keep looking at your reflection in that diploma frame and telling yourself that, friendo.
Out of curiosity, what about when people say, "If I never see you again, it'll be too soon?" Is that a whimsical way of someone saying they actually hope to see you again and preferably sometime soon, or is it someone who suffers from bad word choice and is attempting to inform that they never want to see you again?
If you ever comment on this again, it'll be too soon, and if you do, I couldn't care less.