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

But regarding the phrase in question, even if "negation by association" ends up with most of the world using the phrase "could care less", that doesn't change the fact that it is logically messed up.

According to this, if the majority of the worlds population decided that 2+2=5, that would be correct.

Quote:

I don’t know why people who set themselves up as authorities, like OmSig including some editors, don’t bother to look at actual reference works on usage, but instead just pour out their personal tastes, largely based on dimly remembered bits of lore they picked up in school. Why no glance at all at MWDEU, which has thoughtful, and scholarly, discussions of almost all of the points on Gingerich’s list?
Instead, we get blinkered pig-ignorance.

http://arnoldzwicky.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/on-the-garmmra-watch/

You're not telling me anything new, C.

Good to hear.

But regarding the phrase in question, even if "negation by association" ends up with most of the world using the phrase "could care less", that doesn't change the fact that it is logically messed up. I've never been one to follow the crowd off a cliff.
According to this, if the majority of the worlds population decided that 2+2=5, that would be correct.

I don't think you fully understand negation in language.

I think you don't fully understand negation in language.

Language, thru use, creates its own logic.

It is "On the garmmra watch"
that JTT is quoting, above.
Its difficult to see how much of this
is offered in pure humor.

JTT, is lying,
in that he asserts FALSELY that I am among those
"who set themselves up as authorities". I never, never did that.

Presumably, there was a time when almost everyone
believed that the Earth was flat; it remained a false belief.
Back then, the Earth was round ANYWAY,
regardless of how many people believed otherwise.

Perhaps. But I know that the two phrases you I quoted above are two ways to communicate something, and that both are consistent with the logic of language. In both those phrases you use a negative to communicate the same thing. It's differently placed in each, but that doesn't matter.

But "could care less" as meaning "couldn't care less" is not an example of that. No matter how you spin it, it is not logical. At best it is a cultural fashion, but it is not consistent with the logic of language, nor will it ever be.

Putting aside issues of nuance, how can you suggest that "I don't think" communicates the same thing as "I think". Following your, Om's and others line of reasoning, that's just plain illogical, C.

The same folk who complain about could care less complain about double negatives, using the silly notion that language should follow the rules of math. Isn't that rather silly? It doesn't take a genius to grasp that language is not math.

You folks are the ones trying to spin things, you folks are the ones you attempt to deny reality.

JTT, is lying,
in that he asserts FALSELY that I am among those
"who set themselves up as authorities". I never, never did that.

You are the one that is lying, Sig. You wrote here of telling
some young gentlemen - was it your brothers??? - of the mistake
they were making, I believe, it was the 'everyone/their' canard.

When I pointed out that you were flat out wrong, you continued in your nonsense,

continued to assert that you were right.
In fact you do this kind of thing on a regular basis,
setting yourself up as a language/grammar expert
despite all indications [Your "indications" r in your delusions, J. David] to the contrary.

Presumably, there was a time when almost everyone
believed that the Earth was flat; it remained a false belief.
Back then, the Earth was round ANYWAY,
regardless of how many people believed otherwise.

It is. It is your illogical interpretation of those phrases. You can't cut them there. You have to say either I don't think you understand, or I think you don't understand, because the word don't relates to either think or understand, thereby communicating roughly the same sentiment.

It's not my interpretation, C. It's yours and Om's and all the other idiots who say that a positive and a negative can't hold the same meaning when you come right out and state that they can.

If a person doesn't think, then how can that person make a comment upon another's degree of knowledge. Moreover, how can that "I don't think ... ." hold the same meaning as the positive, "I think ... ."?

S could give a damn/a rat's ass/a ****/a fat ****/a **** ... . These mean the same things as the negative form S couldn't give ... .

Quote:

It's not my interpretation, C. It's yours and Om's and all the other idiots who say that a positive and a negative can't hold the same meaning when you come right out and state that they can.

No. You said this:

Quote:

If a person doesn't think, then how can that person make a comment upon another's degree of knowledge. Moreover, how can that "I don't think ... ." hold the same meaning as the positive, "I think ... ."?

...which clearly demonstrates that you don't know how to approach this issue. The confusion comes from your inability to understand how the words fit together to form the meanings.

Quote:

S could give a damn/a rat's ass/a ****/a fat ****/a **** ... . These mean the same things as the negative form S couldn't give ... .

These are just more examples of barely literate people cluttering up language by using phrases they don't fully understand.
I am not saying that these phrases aren't common. I am just saying that they do not conform to the logic of the English language.
Besides, the correct phrases in those cases would be I don't give a damn/a rat's ass/a ****/a fat ****/a ****

Anyone using the phrase "I could give a damn" in any social gathering with people beyond high school education would be considered an idiot, same as anyone using the phrase "I could care less". But hey, if you want to go around displaying your lacking English skills, feel free.

U know what a sentence means BY PARSING IT.

In the past, JTT implied that a man 's sentence shud be judged
by whatever he is secretly thinking about it,
if his use of language is popular, as distinct from what he actually SAYS.

No. You said this:

What Cyracuz suggests I wrote:
If a person doesn't think, then how can that person make a comment upon another's degree of knowledge. Moreover, how can that "I don't think ... ." hold the same meaning as the positive, "I think ... ."?


...which clearly demonstrates that you don't know how to approach this issue. The confusion comes from your inability to understand how the words fit together to form the meanings.

These are just more examples of barely literate people cluttering up language by using phrases they don't fully understand.
I am not saying that these phrases aren't common. I am just saying that they do not conform to the logic of the English language.
Besides, the correct phrases in those cases would be I don't give a damn/a rat's ass/a ****/a fat ****/a ****

Anyone using the phrase "I could give a damn" in any social gathering with people beyond high school education would be considered an idiot, same as anyone using the phrase "I could care less". But hey, if you want to go around displaying your lacking English skills, feel free.

You have pulled that portion in italics out of context, Cyracuz. That's either dishonesty on your part, an inability to read or follow a line of reasoning.

No JTT. I quoted the full paragraph in which you said that, leaving nothing out. This is a matter of record, or as some scrubs like to say; scroll up and re-read.

I think I've made my position clear, and I see no purpose in repeating it. I think perhaps your position is a matter of cultural coloring of language. Most people understand what is meant by "could care less" because of common cultural heritage. That doesn't mean that it is grammatically or logically sound.