Supposably and Expecially (excetera, excetera, excetera)

[ThankQ]

I could care less (this one is everywhere)

I've posted this little philosophy elsewhere so forgive me if you've already ready it.

I could care less is actually more honest and more accurate if you want to be pedantic. If you care enough about something to post a comment then you do care somewhat and could in fact care less. Stating that you could not care less about something when you actually could care less is a falsehood.

First, you're working backward instead of forward.

To simply comment on something doesn't mean you care about it.

You're arguing from only the idea of the unsolicited comment. Often, "I could/n't care less" is a result of the question, "What do you think about that?"

In the case of a solicited response, "I could care less" allows for exactly that, less caring or interest or whatever.

 

[Guartho]

I don't see very many solicited responses on discussion forums.

I maintain that if you care enough to comment then you could care less.

 

[ThankQ]

I don't see very many solicited responses on discussion forums.

I maintain that if you care enough to comment then you could care less.

The phrase is not limited to use on internet BBSs.

 

[Brian]

It bugs me when someone says that their curiosity is "peaked" instead of "piqued".

Or when they use "que" when they mean "queue".

Or talk about a "web sight".

 

[Guartho]

Sure, but that's far and away where I encounter it most often. It was seeing it over and over in it's printed form that lead me to this revelation and now I share it as if it were the secret to the 4th density.

(Meaning I do realize that it's still wrong, but I still see it from a George Carlinesque point of view.)

 

[SVD]

A whole 'nother
I could care less (this one is everywhere)

I use "whole 'nother" at times for effect, and often in my inner monologue.

The whole "could/couldnt care less" thing is so ambiguous that I never use it, and I don't care to think about how to use it.

 

[RoJoHen]

I've yet to figure out how to create this sentence, WITHOUT changing the meaning, and without a double negative:

Don't let me die for nothing.

That's not really considered a double negative, is it?

Even so, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using double negatives as long as you actually know what you're saying. The sentence may sound odd, but if the double negative conveys the intended meaning, it's perfectly acceptable.

 

[ThankQ]

I've yet to figure out how to create this sentence, WITHOUT changing the meaning, and without a double negative:

Don't let me die for nothing.

That's not really considered a double negative, is it?

No, it's not. <--- Neither is that

Even so, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using double negatives as long as you actually know what you're saying. The sentence may sound odd, but if the double negative conveys the intended meaning, it's perfectly acceptable.

Yes, this sentence is perfectly acceptable, as are genuine double negatives, as long as the intended meaning is conveyed.

This is the little-understood difference between grammar and usage.

Grammatically, the sentence "It don't bother me none" is perfectly acceptable, so long as you have successfully conveyed the meaning you intended. If someone were to tell me that all this chat about grammar and usage "don't matter to me none," I would understand him to mean he does not care about the subject.

While the sentence is grammatically fine in that the meaning has been conveyed successfully, we would call this "substandard usage" or "informal usage", depending upon where you draw the line between those two, which is (I hold, though some disagree) a subjective issue.

Of course, a mathematical deconstruction of "don't matter none" would show, logically, that if something "does NOT matter NONE," then it, in fact, does matter. This is, however, is thoroughly unimportant, outside of academia, so long as I have understood your intent.

 

[RoJoHen]

Of course, a mathematical deconstruction of "don't matter none" would show, logically, that if something "does NOT matter NONE," then it, in fact, does matter. This is, however, is thoroughly unimportant, outside of academia, so long as I have understood your intent.

Yeah, this is more the point I was trying to make. I would certainly understand what you're trying to say, and I probably wouldn't waste my time correcting you, but I would say this is definitely an incorrect use of a double negative, simply because the intended meaning is different from what the sentence actually says.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Of course, a mathematical deconstruction of "don't matter none" would show, logically, that if something "does NOT matter NONE," then it, in fact, does matter. This is, however, is thoroughly unimportant, outside of academia, so long as I have understood your intent.

Yet, and I say this someone who utterly loves mathematics and weeps bitter tears thinking how much it's abused nowadays, languages don't have necessarily to apply mathematical construction to its wording. Actually, I think the attempt to apply mathematical logic to language is almost unique to English, and a very recent addiction (about 200 years, I think). In fact, in most European languages double negatives are perfectly acceptable: I know for sure that a construct like "I don't care nothing about that" (non mi interessa niente di questo) is perfectly good in Italian.

 

[ThankQ]

In conversation, there really is no point in correction. It is far more likely to diminsh your reputation than it is to help your cause.

There really are only two times I'll bother to correct anyone. The first, obviously, would be in formal writing. "Formal" doesn't mean only academic papers, but also legal documents, magazine articles and even restaurant menus. This is why the express lane "12 Items or Less" bothers me. That is, in fact, formal writing, and in need of correction. It's not so obvious if you say you want "less cookies" than you have, but it becomes painfully obvious if you were to say, "I'd like fewer milk".

When I knock on a friends door and get a "Who is it?" I don't say, "It is I," I'll say, like most everyone else, "It's me." Doesn't sound so bad until you phrase it a bit differently: "Me am at the door."

The second time I'll correct someone, like say in TNZ, for example, is if one is trying to show how clever he is, or more likely, how unclever someone else is, and in his effort to call someone else "stupid", falls victim to substandard usage.

Then it's just fun.