# "I could care less" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 27, 2014, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622 "2014-08-27T11:49:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/161 "2014-08-29T16:54:59Z")
> [@dunkleosteus](#): > > Now though, in an age when education is mandated and the grammatical guides and laws are set, should we still allow phrases or idioms to devolve and break these rules? Do we allow new phrases to be exempt as the grandfathered, older phrases are? Attempting to fossilize or codify a language beyond the boundaries native speakers naturally set is simply not possible. That you use verbs like allow and devolve insinuates a fundamental misunderstanding about what is in control here. You and I cannot do anything really. It is the language in aggregate that decides and that beast can be rode but not tamed. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/162 "2014-08-29T17:00:23Z")
> [@eburacum45](#): > > Here’s a post by Mark Liberman, who disagrees with Pinker, but gives an even more interesting explanation for the shift in phaseology > [Language Log: Most of the people in the world could care less](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001209.html) > > This process also apparently happens in French, and in the phrases “I could give a {damn|shit|hoot|(flying) fuck|crap|rat’s ass}”, one of which has already been mentioned in this thread. > > Since there are a large number of phrases which follow the same pattern in various languages, this does seem to imply a repeating process rather than a simple mistake. Now we’re getting somewhere! This strikes me as the best explanation I’ve seen so far; thanks! ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/163 "2014-08-29T17:01:01Z")
Yeah, I’m not really sure what you expect to be done. I’m an English major, worked as a copy editor for a spell (AP Style), and know Standard American English or whatever you want to call the prestige dialect pretty well. But I use forms like “could care less,” “literally,” double negatives, redundant prepositions (“Where you at?”), etc. because those are idiomatic in my dialect. I can’t see any amount of rules changing that. We were _all_ taught through twelve years of Catholic grammar and high school that “ain’t” isn’t a word and not to use the permissive “can,” but rather “may,” among many, many other “rules.” Did that make one whit of difference to any of us in our day-to-day language? Pretty much, no. ---
**Author:** ![dunkleosteus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dunkleosteus/32/9331_2.png) [@dunkleosteus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dunkleosteus)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/164 "2014-08-29T17:29:34Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Yeah, I’m not really sure what you expect to be done. I’m an English major, worked as a copy editor for a spell (AP Style), and know Standard American English or whatever you want to call the prestige dialect pretty well. But I use forms like “could care less,” “literally,” double negatives, redundant prepositions (“Where you at?”), etc. because those are idiomatic in my dialect. I can’t see any **number** of rules changing that. We were _all_ taught through twelve years of Catholic grammar and high school that “ain’t” isn’t a word and not to use the permissive “can,” but rather “may,” among many, many other “rules.” Did that make one whit of difference to any of us in our day-to-day language? Pretty much, no. \<\_\< this actually kind of proves your point though ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/165 "2014-08-29T17:48:48Z")
> [@dunkleosteus](#): > > \<\_\< > > this actually kind of proves your point though I’m not seeing your point. When pulykamell talks about “rules” teachers promulgate in school, he really means the conventions that are enforced because it’s far easier - and admittedly much more sensible - to lay down right/wrong “rules” to children just learning how to use the language, rather than confusing them with the endless nuance of real language that we’re arguing about here. I have a rule of thumb that whatever anyone brings up what their English teacher said about language will be wrong. It works in almost every case. Their simplifications are no different than those in Strunk & White. Language buffs love to point out its errors and contradictions an failures to follow its own advice. But if you need that kind of help, that kind of help is well nigh perfect. A teacher can say “don’t use could care less in an assignment” and be completely justified. But that advice is silly and meaningless in the real world where people know what they mean to say and how to say it. And usage does not have “rules” similar to grammar. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/166 "2014-08-29T17:54:07Z")
I may be having a brain fart, but I’m assuming you are pointing out either an incorrect or colloquial usage of the word “number” there? I don’t see anything non-standard there. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/167 "2014-08-29T18:46:28Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > wolfpup, that’s not a useful argument at all. That sort of argument is very common, but it’s not the correct way to argue for the etymology of a phrase or a word at all. The true etymology is not the one that sounds to you like the simplest one (and in any case different people have different feelings about what the simplest explanation is). The correct way to find out the true etymology of a word or phrase is to look through all the published (and, these days, filmed or televised or preserved in an online media) uses of the term. Using them you can at least narrow down the possible origins of the term. > > … Do you have any training in etymology? I have a master’s degree in linguistics and have done a lot of reading about etymology. Etymology is not something that can be done by pure intuition. It actually takes some training. Point taken. However, so far we have at least three competing explanations for the apparent “incorrect” version of “couldn’t care less”, so etymology isn’t getting us anywhere. > [@Osiris\_the\_1st](#): > > I’ve always interpreted “I could care less.” as being shorthand for “As if I could care less.” At least that’s the way my brain makes sense of it. The problem is, as I point out below, that since the phrase carries a clear meaning as it stands, it doesn’t invite us to supply such modifiers. > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > That’s a baseless worry. By its very nature language cannot be degraded. We are not computer programs that senselessly take in inputs, perform a prescribed set of functions to it and output the results willy-nilly. Sure language can be degraded. This is why we teach grammar, spelling, semantics and rules of usage to school kids. Sure those rules can be bent and broken by writers who know what they’re doing, but they’re an essential baseline for those who don’t. I’ll say again that I think it’s telling that those who have condemned so-called “prescriptivists” are in fact good and careful writers themselves who clearly know the rules and almost always follow them. > [@eburacum45](#): > > Here’s a post by Mark Liberman, who disagrees with Pinker, but gives an even more interesting explanation for the shift in phaseology > [Language Log: Most of the people in the world could care less](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001209.html) > > This process also apparently happens in French, and in the phrases “I could give a {damn|shit|hoot|(flying) fuck|crap|rat’s ass}”, one of which has already been mentioned in this thread. > > Since there are a large number of phrases which follow the same pattern in various languages, this does seem to imply a repeating process rather than a simple mistake. Except that the example you cite is subtly but significantly different. It isn’t an idiom that is an exact converse of some other, but rather, one that is obviously incomplete and the reader is inclined to either re-interpret it as something like “as if I give a damn” or supply a concluding phrase, as in “I could give a damn, but I don’t”. An exact converse would be saying “I give a damn” when you really mean “I **don’t** give a damn”. That’s the case with “couldn’t care less” turning into “could care less”. One might try to rationalize it by saying that there’s some implied preceding or following phrase that changes its meaning, but it doesn’t **demand** such a phrase because it carries a meaning just as it stands, and the meaning it carries is the exact opposite of the intended one. To me, that’s as jarring as someone hitting a completely wrong musical note. ---
**Author:** ![Killing\_Time](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/76d3ee/32.png) [@Killing\_Time](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Killing_Time)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/168 "2014-08-29T18:47:18Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > wolfpup, that’s not a useful argument at all. That sort of argument is very common, but it’s not the correct way to argue for the etymology of a phrase or a word at all. The true etymology is not the one that sounds to you like the simplest one (and in any case different people have different feelings about what the simplest explanation is). The correct way to find out the true etymology of a word or phrase is to look through all the published (and, these days, filmed or televised or preserved in an online media) uses of the term. Using them you can at least narrow down the possible origins of the term. > > For instance, consider the word “O.K.” There were many explanations for its origin, many of them quite a bit cleverer (and, I suspect, some would say simpler) than the true origin. The true etymology was uncovered in a series of articles by Allen Walker Read in 1964 and 1965. The same is true of the phrase “the whole nine yards.” Some of the work on this etymology was done on the SDMB, in fact. Do a search on the board and you can read about it. Do you have any training in etymology? I have a master’s degree in linguistics and have done a lot of reading about etymology. Etymology is not something that can be done by pure intuition. It actually takes some training. You missed the point. The origin of “O.K.” is something that can be factually demonstrated. But this nonsense about there being some sort of subtle change in intonation or body language or whatever that somehow transforms the phrase “I could care less” into some sort of heretofore unheard of sarcasm where one does not say the _opposite_ of one’s intended meaning, but rather a strangely watered down version of one’s intended meaning, that is 100% conjecture, but takes practically an entire essay to explain, is extremely suspect. Given that we have a simpler explanation, i.e. the usage began as a simple mistake, Occam’s Razor most certainly does apply. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/169 "2014-08-29T18:54:27Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > Killing Time writes: > > \> That is absolutely nothing like “I could care less”, which is just lazily leaving out > \> the “not” and has nothing to do with the joke. > > I disagree. I think they are very comparable. They’re both part of a phenomenon in English (and presumably other languages, but I can’t speak to them) we might call Negative Suspension. This is when you hold off making the statement negative until the very end. That doesn’t make sense for “I could care less.” I don’t see at all how you’re drawing a comparison to the “… NOT!” and the end of a sentence. That one is a joke, where you string along a person with something usually complimentary, then suddenly at the end you throw in the surprise negation. How the hell is that anything like “I could care less”? > [@eburacum45](#): > > This is not a contest, but an attempt to dispel ignorance; most of the ignorance seems to be on the side of those who doggedly believe that this idiom is due to a mishearing. If it were a mishearing then it would not have a different intonation; case closed. What different intonation? I’ve never noticed that people who say “could” vs. “couldn’t” use a different intonation at all. ---
**Author:** ![Killing\_Time](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/76d3ee/32.png) [@Killing\_Time](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Killing_Time)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/170 "2014-08-29T18:58:19Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Killing time, do you realize other people are trying to have a reasoned conversation here? If you can’t participate, you might do yourself some good by reading along. Dispel some of that ignorance and all. I disagree that you are trying to have a reasoned conversation. I submit that you are simply arguing for the sake of argument. In this post: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17682108&postcount=128](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17682108&postcount=128) you completely missed wolfpup’s point, which was a salient one, and your post is utterly non-responsive. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/171 "2014-08-29T19:19:09Z")
> [@dunkleosteus](#): > > Now though, in an age when education is mandated and the grammatical guides and laws are set, should we still allow phrases or idioms to devolve and break these rules? I don’t mean to pick on you, but THIS, not “I could care less,” is the sort of poor use of language that we should get worried about. I’ve read this sentence several times and cannot figure out how the word “allow” makes any sense in it. What’s your proposal: do we jail people who use the phrase? Kick them off the airplane? Pummel them in the streets? I don’t think you’re communicating very clearly here, certainly not as clearly as I’d communicate were I to say, “I could care less about arbitrary rules of convention.” The only person who’d fail to get my meaning would be someone deliberately failing. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I’m not seeing your point. When pulykamell talks about “rules” teachers promulgate in school, he really means the conventions that are enforced because it’s far easier - and admittedly much more sensible - to lay down right/wrong “rules” to children just learning how to use the language, rather than confusing them with the endless nuance of real language that we’re arguing about here. It’s one of my problems as a teacher. I joke around with students as I pass out papers, and today as a student helped me, I said something like, “Thanks, Susan, that’s a ginormous help. Even though ‘ginormous’ isn’t even a word it’s a ginormous help.” A student nearby thought about it for a minute and said, “Yeah it is! If ‘flub’ can be a word, ‘ginormous’ can be a word!” His logic, while appealing, doesn’t really hold up. However, he was right. “You’re right,” I said. “Of course it’s a word, since you know what I meant when I said it. I should’ve said, even though it’s not a word in the dictionary.” It’s always a precarious balance between confusing students and misleading them. I try to be clear when I teach kids the conventions of spoken and written English that they’re rules of a game, not absolute rules of the universe. If you said, “Is you ready?” at home, that’s a fine thing to say, even if I’ll encourage, “Are you ready?” in the classroom. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/172 "2014-08-29T19:21:56Z")
> [@Killing\_Time](#): > > I disagree that you are trying to have a reasoned conversation. I submit that you are simply arguing for the sake of argument. In this post: > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17682108&postcount=128](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17682108&postcount=128) > > you completely missed wolfpup’s point, which was a salient one, and your post is utterly non-responsive. Uh, his point was a simple, simplistic point; I explained it in that post and explained how his belief in the superiority of conventions was undermined by the post. Do you understand how it’s undermined? Your posts have oscillated between Grand Guignol and two-bit cheerleading. You’re in no position to critique my own posts. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/173 "2014-08-29T19:44:27Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > What different intonation? I’ve never noticed that people who say “could” vs. “couldn’t” use a different intonation at all. Personally, I do say them differently, but I wouldn’t call the intonation saracasm, necessarily. I’m not really buying that explanation. I say something like “I could CARE LESS,” with a slightly elongated “care” and “less” vs a normal straight reading. But not everyone does it this way. Some do, I think, say it with a straight intonation. It really doesn’t make a difference to me, as it’s an ironic idiom. It doesn’t have to make literal sense. I personally don’t think it developed out of a mishearing error, but whether it did or didn’t is immaterial to me. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/174 "2014-08-29T19:47:08Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > “You’re right,” I said. “Of course it’s a word, since you know what I meant when I said it. I should’ve said, even though it’s not a word in the dictionary.” Except that it is. (Collins and Merriam-Webster both have it. It is, of course, informal.) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/175 "2014-08-29T20:08:33Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Except that it is. (Collins and Merriam-Webster both have it. It is, of course, informal.) Oops–thanks! I’ll let him know that on Tuesday. He’ll be pleased. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/176 "2014-08-29T20:16:51Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Oops–thanks! I’ll let him know that on Tuesday. He’ll be pleased. You might have to check the unabridged versions, though. Apparently–and I was a little surprised–the word dates back to at least [1948](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=ginormous&searchmode=none), possibly 1942, according to that source. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/177 "2014-08-29T20:23:55Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > You might have to check the unabridged versions, though. It’s only in the ginormous dictionaries? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/178 "2014-08-29T21:25:38Z")
It’s interesting that an innocent topic like this seems to evoke deeply held beliefs which are then defended with corresponding vehemence. My own belief is that the fundamental purpose of language is communication. By this I mean communication in the broadest sense of the word, not just the technical communication of information but the communication of emotions and imagery and the engendering of ideas and inspiration. It’s all communication. Which may sound like a simplistic truism until one realizes how much of what we do with language undermines that fundamental purpose. As much as creative writing can bend and break every rule that’s ever been made – and I do it all the time – there really is such a thing as incorrect usage, and when we engage in it we are usually (not always) contributing to some combination of undermining communication and degrading the language. Not even the linguistic freethinkers who pontificate on such matters really disagree with this; I think we just disagree on where the boundaries are. To those who think “I could care less” is within those boundaries and is a terrific way of communicating the fact that they couldn’t, I would ask what they would say in a situation where they could, in fact, care less. A particular phrase has been robbed of its meaning and perverted into its inverse, to no useful end. The etymology of the mistake may be interesting but is ultimately irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/179 "2014-08-29T21:33:05Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I personally don’t think it developed out of a mishearing error, but whether it did or didn’t is immaterial to me. But that’s what this whole thread is about - whether it came from a mis-hearing error or was intentionally phrased to be sarcastic. My opinion is those who say it was intentionally sarcastic have a huge plausibility problem to overcome, and no evidence. Clearly (to me), the most plausible explanation is that it was mis-heard and carelessly repeated. The intentionally-sarcastic explanation just doesn’t make sense, because sarcasm always says the opposite of what is meant, while “could care less” doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bones\_Daley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bc8723/32.png) [@Bones\_Daley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bones_Daley)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/180 "2014-08-29T21:44:14Z")
Little did I think that my innocent OP would spawn a four page thread … It does occur to me to wonder what the appropriate response of the “could care less” advocates would be if they were asked point blank (about something which doesn’t concern them remotely , let’s call it “issue X”) "Mr Freethinker, could you care less about issue X? ". Would the answer be “yes” or “no” ? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622.md?page=10)