What country are you from? “car-á-mel”? Any time I have heard three syllables, the accent has always been “cár-a-mel” or “car-a-mél”, never on the second syllable.
According to M-W, they don’t even show the last syllable being emphasized, but they do show it pronounced as “carmel”.
ˈkär-məl; ˈker-ə-məl, ˈka-rə-, -ˌmel\
Also, when the word adds ize (ise) to the end, the pronounciation definitely changes to ˈkär-məl līz, I’ve never heard ˈka-rə-, -ˌmel līz.
This is one of my peeves, “I’ve never heard _______” is not a valid argument.
Gee, yes, speaking personally that I’ve never heard of something is quite the “argument” :rolleyes:
(Concerning the pronunciation of ‘sherbet.’)
Eh, WHOOSH? I realize that your response was very sincere and factual. Mine, however, was done with some levity. But after further review, mine was kinda dumb, so it desereved to be whooshed.
I was referring to this:
MacLir denotes the accent as being on the second syllable. I was correcting him saying that, no, it’s on the first syllable in the three syllable pronunciation.
When I wrote “The three-syllable example has the accent on the second syllable instead of the first” I meant his three-syllable example. That’s why I used the word “example” instead of “pronunciation” because I was referring to his example.
In a language thread, sure, it’s interesting to note. There’s no “argument” being made here, just observation of popular usage. I’ve heard both the two and three syllable pronunciations of caramel, and, as I said above, I use both myself (although I think I’m mostly a two-syllable speaker now. At one point, I used the three syllable pronunciation more.) Like stpauler, though, I’ve never heard “caramelize” used with the three syllable pronunciation. I find that somewhat interesting.
It may be here to stay, like more then is here to stay, but it is still wrong. It doesn’t matter how many links you post that try to figure out when and why the first person got it wrong and other morons followed suit. It’s still every bit as wrong as more then.
But by all means, keep using it if you don’t mind looking like a fool.
I could give a fuck. 
I absolutely disagree that it’s every bit as wrong as “more then.” And the more is pisses pedants off, the more I will use it. It’s perfectly idiomatic and acceptable. I don’t see anyone defending “more then.” That’s a spelling mistake. That’s not an idiom. Find me one person defending that usage as correct. “I could care less” is idiom. Plenty of people who know more than you (and I) do about language are fine with it. And it might not even be a mistake. Have you read any of the explanations as to its usage and genesis I’ve linked to? Or are you so closed and so adamant in your dismissal of the phrase that you are not going to consider those arguments?
Out of curiosity, do you have the same problem with the phrase “head over heels”? If something is in an inverted or atypical state, shouldn’t it be “heels over head”?
How exactly do you think the language you revere so much came to be?
I’ve read them all, and others, as well. I’m a professional copy editor, and you will never convince me that this particular mistake is an acceptable usage of the idiom. Just because people who refuse to accept correct usage continue to argue in favor of using a misunderstood and misused idiom, doesn’t therefore make it correct, so your argument that no one is “defending” more then is utterly irrelevant.
And I couldn’t care less how much you insist on using it; it’s your call if you want to look ignorant.
Don’t insult me. I’m perfectly aware that language grows and changes. But that doesn’t mean incorrect uses of terms or idioms or other grammar constructs are proper just because people start using them. You are free to write alright all you’d like, as millions of people do. It’s in the dictionary, too. It’s still non-standard and considered incorrect.
Suit yourself.
Even in The New York Times “could care less” is on pace to overtake “couldn’t care less.”
It’s an American idiom. Period. You can correct it in formal speech. Colloquially, it’s perfectly fine. Like I asked you, do you have the same objections to “head over heels”?
The thing is, they might not be simple errors. There are several theories on the genesis of the phrase that suggest to me “I could care less” might not be simple erroneous repetition. I personally like the “negation by association” explanation I linked to previously. I also do think Steven Pinker has a point with the inflection of the phrase being different than a straight declarative sentence, but I’m not convinced it’s a sarcastic tone, as he does.
But I personally don’t care if it’s an “error” or not, I prefer the euphony and quirk of the colloquial “could care less” to the flat literalism of “couldn’t care less.” Would I use it in a formal paper? No, of course not. Would I change it in the formal non-editorial copy of a newspaper? Yes, unless it was quoted material. Would I use it when talking with friend, absolutely. Just like I use “ain’t” and double negatives and “borrow” to mean “lend.”
Actually, that’s exactly what it means. It’s not purely democratic, indeed, if it were the correct forms would be some strange simplified English by way of Mandarin or the like, but yes, as a form is adapted by the speakers of a language, it can grow and develop sometimes even into the standard dialect. By your logic, however, we would be forced to regard as wrong words like uncle, apron and nickname which would be quite silly, I’m sure you’ll agree. No one is requiring you personally to use I could care less and frankly, I don’t care if you want to rail against it. But stating that it’s somehow objectively wrong is going to reduce your credibility among everyone except Safire-ian Jeremiahs.
The first hit from your link says
Not even Grammar Girl is as dead set as you, which isn’t surprising. In general, I think GG has a pretty good understanding of correctness standards.
Yeah, this is the link to Grammar Girl on “Could Care Less.” Her short explanation is actually pretty even keeled and sensible. She recommends using “couldn’t care less,” which is exactly what I would recommend, because this phrase is, as you can tell from this thread, pretty touchy among a certain set.
Since nobody addressed this yet, I’ll give it a go. In my mind, the words are semantically similar, but different. In my experience, “complete”, as an adjective, means “full, total, whole, not missing anything”, while “compleat” is more like “highly skilled/accomplished, consummate, exemplary, ideal”. But according to the internets, they are considered variants, and I can see how the two senses are related: I could give “perfect” as another definition for either word. There are situations in which they I agree they could both be used:
“She is a complete professional.” - she is not lacking any aspect of professionalism
“She is a compleat professional.” - she is an ideal example of a professional
But that’s not always the case, in my opinion:
“These are the complete works of Shakespeare.” - this is everything he wrote
“These are the compleat works of Shakespeare.” - these are the best things he wrote (???)
But the main difference is that “compleat” is becoming antiquated. Spellcheck doesn’t care for it at all. (Then again, it doesn’t like “spellcheck”, either, so maybe take that with a grain of salt. )
Bullshit. Look at the bold part. She’s giving one example to her readers/listeners because it’s “out there,” calling it a contradiction, and reiterating that the other sources she checked reject alright even though it is “gaining traction.”
She concludes by saying:
But hey, points for selective quoting there, dude.
Love how these threads get some folks’ dander up.