The mean is a calculated value, but if the data set is comprised entirely of integers, then the median must also be an integer since it’s derived directly from samples of the data set. Same for mode. In the case of bi-modal or multi-modal distributions, I believe the convention is to list the modes, not average them.
From what authority did you glean this amazing wisdom?
Yes, very similar. Speakers intuitively change their word selection, pronunciation, and other language features depending on who they’re talking to, what they’re talking about, and so on. It comes so naturally that it’s difficult for us to notice.
Wiki page for more info:
You get again show your ignorance of linguistics. Descriptivists no more celebrate word usage than physicists celebrate gravitation.
Never mind, misread it…
More bullshit. I’m being hyperbolic again, of course, because I’m annoyed, and of course descriptivism is central to linguistics and at some level the foundation of language. But my point is that ardent descriptivists defend the poor use of language, and scrabble like rodents in the night looking for justifications for it. We’ve just seen examples of that, with different linguists putting forward different, competing, and possibly equally specious hypotheses.
You just aren’t doing yourself any favors in this thread.
An explanation is not a defense nor a justification. At worst, it’s a hypothesis. It’s unfortunate that you’re so incurious about how language works, that you see any description of a usage you don’t prefer as something to argue about.
Are you sure?
Language is fascinating.
I have to admit, though I love that book, I’m not exactly sold on Pinker’s theory, either, and I rarely hear it with that type of sarcastic intonation. For me, it’s just an idiom. It doesn’t have to make any sense. Many idioms don’t. I like “I could care less” and purposely use it because it sounds punchier, more percussive to me, and it irks the pedants. But what I hear is a deleted/implied “[as if/like] I could care less” when it is said. I’m not saying that is the origin, or that’s my theory why people say it. People say it because other people say it – simple as that. But that’s what I hear. It’s the same when people say “I could give a shit.”
Interestingly, I actually do hear “like I could give a shit” fairly often. I can’t ever remember hearing “like I could care less” but the other seems pretty common.
I’ve always assumed that “I could care less” was actually “As if I could care less” with the “As if” part implied.
Just my 2 agorot.
I’ve also heard, “I could care.”
Melanie’s song “Lay Down” is using the correct verb. “Lay it all down” is the lyric, not “(You) Lay Down.”
LOL. Guess I didn’t listen that closely!
Whether “I could care less” is sarcasm (which is what I always assumed, before I heard of Pinker’s supposition) or is a slurring of words (something English is positively rife with) or is a mishearing is an interesting discussion. They’re competing hypotheses, and linguists are mad creative at coming up with tests for their hypotheses, and if someone were serious about the issue, they could probably explore it further.
But calling the people who use the expression “morons” is just moronic. That takes it out of the realm of hypothesizing and into the realm of sneering.
Wolfpup uses the word “descriptivist” with the same sort of arrogant sneer that astrologists use the word “astronomer.” It’d be charming, like a dog chasing its tail real fast, if it didn’t keep gumming up otherwise interesting threads.
wolfpup is the astronomer, the “descriptivists” are the astrologers
If I thought you had even the slightest clue what we were talking about, I might respond more fully.
It shouldn’t be necessary to say this so I assume you’re just being intentionally obtuse, but “moron” in this context is a Pit-appropriate term meant to highlight the belief that “could care less” originated as a mishearing rather than an intentional formulation, and was then repeated by those seemingly unaware of its semantic oddness. But I’m willing to accept the “negation by association” hypothesis from Language Log that was linked by @Q.Q.Switcheroo earlier to explain its endurance, although as I mentioned earlier the original “couldn’t care less” is much more prevalent.
As for “sneering”, that’s delightfully ironic coming from someone who on this board is a consummate master of the art. You might, for instance, refer to the post immediately above this one for a fine example.
Oh, I am glad to sneer in the pit. I just don’t do it from a position of superstitious ignorance like you do.
This is the literal opposite of the truth. Astronomers study the stars, make hypotheses, revise them when they are wrong. Astrologers make up a bunch of correlations between stars and personalities and act as if they are laws of nature. Linguists study and describe how language evolves and humans use it. Perscriptivists make up a bunch of rules and act as if they are laws of nature.