"I COULD care less" or "I COULDN'T care less" Which is it?

@McTag,

Or it has nothing to do with the head or face.

=========
M-W

bald
3: lacking adornment or amplification <a bald assertion>
4: undisguised, palpable <bald arrogance>

1 Reply

@JTT,

Yes, I mentioned metaphor earlier.

A bald mountain, for example.

1 Reply

@McTag,

That's probably a simile, but still.

0 Replies

@RealEyes,

RealEyes wrote:

Both are valid, but in different ways.

"I couldn't care less" would be to say, your patience has evaporated, and you are completely apathetic to the situation.

"I could care less" would be to convey spite or antipathy facetiously. As if to say, "oh, if you think I don't care now, just wait until - I'll show you how I can really not care!" It, of course, is not intended to be literal.

More often than not, the former is the more appropriate choice. You need the right circumstance to pull off the second one.

The correct circumstance is never,
because by saying that u can care LESS in the future
u r asserting that u CARE now, so as to be able to reduce your level of concern.
If your level of caring were at zero, then u 'd
not be able to reduce it below that level.

Qua what u said about "is not intended to be literal"
your listener has the logical right to expect u
to say what u mean and to mean what u say
and to hold u to those committments.

He has the right to rely upon and to act upon the basis of your declarations to him.

David

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Quote:
even if it DID, the face is part of the head.

Is it? A facial injury is not a head injury. And vice versa.

A clean-shaven man can have a thick head of hair.

So I don't know what you "have got" which seems to please you so much, but it is not a reasonable position.

1. That is nonsense;
everything between the neck and the hat
(or the alien hair piece) is the head.

2. I did not say that I "have got" anything.
That appears to be among your delusions or hallucinations.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

1. That is nonsense;
everything between the neck and the hat
(or the alien hair piece) is the head.

Wrong, in this context.

Quote:

2. I did not say that I "have got" anything.
That appears to be among your delusions or hallucinations.

Disingenuous, and wrong again.

That's two wrongs in one post: pretty poor.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Quote:
1. That is nonsense;
everything between the neck and the hat
(or the alien hair piece) is the head.

Wrong, in this context.

Quote:

2. I did not say that I "have got" anything.
That appears to be among your delusions or hallucinations.

Disingenuous, and wrong again.

That's two wrongs in one post: pretty poor.

No, its just that u r a very poor judge of it.
Perhaps u might be good at other things.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

You think? Best of luck with the fonetik speling revol-u-shun, anyway.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

You think? Best of luck with the fonetik speling revol-u-shun, anyway.

Thank u; most kind of u.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

David, it's incredible how you continue to pursue this line of nonsense when the facts don't support you at all.

0 Replies

The term that makes sense gramatically is "I couldn't care less".

Like some of the earlies posters said, if you could care less, then you actually care to some extent.
However, I have heard the phrase "i could care less" in many context as meaning the oposite, and the amazing thing is that they were in places you would expect correct grammar and use of words.

So I am currently worrying that this might be a case of the language being transformed by people who don't fully grasp it to such an extent that the incorrect phrase is actually becoming the accepted slang... Scary, if you ask me.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

The term that makes sense gramatically is "I couldn't care less".

Like some of the earlies posters said, if you could care less, then you actually care to some extent.
However, I have heard the phrase "i could care less" in many context as meaning the oposite, and the amazing thing is that they were in places you would expect correct grammar and use of words.

So I am currently worrying that this might be a case of the language being transformed by people who don't fully grasp it to such an extent that the incorrect phrase is actually becoming the accepted slang... Scary, if you ask me.

That 's what it is; sound logic expressed in correct grammar, falling into entropic corruption because people r not careful.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

David, it's incredible how you continue to pursue this line of nonsense when the facts don't support you at all.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

David, yes, I think so too.

Just because some influential people got it wrong and used the wrong phrase where it would reach millions of people, who in turn took the wrong phrase in their mouths, doen't make it right.

It wouldn't be the first time idiocy set the presedence.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

It wouldn't be the first time idiocy set the presedence.

The preceding should have taken precedence over the following..

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

David, yes, I think so too.

Just because some influential people got it wrong and used the wrong phrase
where it would reach millions of people, who in turn took the
wrong phrase in their mouths, doen't make it right.

It wouldn't be the first time idiocy set the presedence.

That 's the concept.
For instance: we have the word ending of ee
(e.g. payee) meaning the recipient,
as distinct from the ending er or or,
as in baker, maker, singer meaning one who DOES the indicated act.

Some nincompoop in the media became confused
and described people who attend events as being: "attendees".
In his confusion, he twisted it around backward.
The people who attend are the attenders,
whereas if there is any "attendee" that is the HOST who receives the attenders,
but the error became wide-spread in the populace, particularly in the media.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Ye, it's scary.

I mean, if you're writing in the mass medias the least you could do is get your words right. I, for one, would not want to be responsible for the degeneration of an entire language.
One of the things that make english such a beautiful language is the consistency in the logic behind it. That very consistency is what is being threatened when influential writers mess it up.

And I am not talking about artistic allowance, which can enhance the language and help it evolve. That's another matter. I am talking about people who slept through classes, who have been granted a voice in the media because they are loud or know the right people, not because they have anything to say with it.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Ye, it's scary.
I mean, if you're writing in the mass medias the least you could do
is get your words right. I, for one, would not want to be responsible
for the degeneration of an entire language.
Some of the reporters just don 't care.
Its not limited only to correct grammar; e.g., in 1989, Sam Donaldson
went to France to cover their celebration of the 200th anniversary
of the fall of the Bastille. I was taken aback to hear him declare
that the French were celebrating "200 years of democracy."
Putting aside King Louis XVIII, Napoleon and Napoleon III et al,
it appears that he included the first half of the 1940s
among those years of democracy !
Presumably, as a Network news reporter, he gets a decent
salary -- maybe a couple of $million a year ?
He is not willing to prepare his presentation ?
He is satisfied to ASSUME that he already knows the applicable history ?
His producers don 't care either ?

For SURE, I am not an expert on French history,
but at least I know that the nazis occupied France within the last 200 years.

Quote:

One of the things that make english such a beautiful language
is the consistency in the logic behind it.

SO STIPULATED !

Quote:
That very consistency is what is being threatened when influential writers mess it up.

And I am not talking about artistic allowance, which can enhance the language and help it evolve. That's another matter. I am talking about people who slept through classes, who have been granted a voice in the media because they are loud or know the right people, not because they have anything to say with it.

I must agree; your points are well taken.

David

0 Replies

@kickycan,

One of my pet peeves, since lots of people say, "I COULD care less," which, of course, indicates the opposite of what they think they're saying.

It's "I COULDN'T care less." Meaning, "I couldn't care any less than I do-- which is zilch."

2 Replies

@alabhaois,

Quote:

One of my pet peeves, since lots of people say, "I COULD care less," which, of course, indicates the opposite of what they think they're saying.

It's "I COULDN'T care less." Meaning, "I couldn't care any less than I do-- which is zilch."

That's simply false, Alabhaois.

"I COULD care less," DOES NOT indicate the opposite of what they think they're saying.

One doesn't have to care at a zero/ziltch level to express a lack of caring but regardless, the idiom "I could care less" is firmly and incontrovertibly established in English and it means the same as "I couldn't care less".

0 Replies

"I COULD care less" or "I COULDN'T care less" Which is it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know