I still don’t think you get Occam’s Razor. The most succinct version of it is “Don’t multiply entities beyond necessity.” The words “beyond necessity” is key. If a more complex understanding of physics is necessary to explain observed phenomena, then the Razor would not apply. Earlier, I worded it as “all other things being equal”, which is saying the same thing. So if your theory of subtle facial expressions and changes in spoken intonation indicating a brand new form of sarcasm that has never been used before, had even an iota of evidence to back it up, then it might win out. Earlier I pointed out that the usage of “O.K.” can be traced back to hard evidence, spoken and in print. “Could care less” as a form of sarcasm, is 100% pure conjecture, with no evidence whatsoever to support it. Given that, the two competing theories are equal, and we must go with the theory that doesn’t invoke bizarre conjecture about sarcasm used in a strange unprecedented way, or “implied” words that are not present in the phrase.
Why would you say that? It happens all the time. An example was already given in this thread. “Heels over head”, morphed into the nonsensical “Head over heels”, for no good reason other than people started saying it wrong, and now it has supplanted the original.
Done.
Absolutely! In fact, I will admit I am guilty of that one myself. I have blindly repeated what some moron got wrong. These “incorrect” phrases have become an inextricable part of the lexicon, but I imagine when they were new, the same type of objections were raised as are now being raised over “could care less”.
I see examples almost every day of “some moron getting it wrong”, and then I see other people imitating the person who got it wrong. Some day I should compile a book, but here are a few that I can recall right now:
“There’s something wrong with the breaks on my car”.
“This house has cooper plumbing.”
“You should get a 30-year fix rate loan.”
“Mortgage back securities.”
“My house needs cleaned.”
“For all intensive purposes…”
“The fat of the matter is…”
“That’s just a mix mash of words.”
“Get use to the idea.”
“I was blind sighted.”
“I play the coronet.” (Really? I didn’t know a crown was a musical instrument.)
Honestly, you would be amazed how often mistakes like this get repeated by others, especially now that one person’s writing is instantly visible to the entire world via the internet.
Then your point must be that “could care less,” without modifiers, means you don’t care about something.
Exactly, and hence my rhetorical question to Exapno, “So no incorrect usage has ever made its way into the accepted mainstream in the entire history of language?”. And to the obvious response that “if it’s in the accepted mainstream then it’s not wrong” – or to its weaker and utterly absurd counterpart “it’s not wrong if it can be understood” – I reply that “could care less” is in a kind of etymological transition stage where it co-exists with its correct counterpart, which I suspect is used a lot more frequently, though that’s beside the point. So we have two variants of an expression, one of which has a clear meaning, and the other is an obfuscated mutant that apparently means the opposite of what it says. Rather than engage in more semantic quibbling about the meaning of the word “wrong”, I’ll just say that it should be obvious which one should be preferred.
Yes, the much richer and engaging ‘could care less’ beats the other one hands down.
No, my point was that the meaning of the phrase has been undermined by incorrect usage, so that it’s not possible to use it to express the condition that it literally describes without creating confusing ambiguity. You claimed that you could. No, throwing in “hey, in this particular instance these words should be understood to mean what they really mean” doesn’t cut it!
Again with the ‘morons’. Is there some American class prejudice thing going on here that I’m not getting?
Interestingly, this was posted long before I read the other posts. It is still the “simplest” explanation.
Yes, because clarity in writing is always such a handicap. Or perhaps you agree with me and are just expressing it in a rich and engaging fashion? 
Yes, and the most ridiculous.
You actually quoted this and then ignored it all in one post. Amazing.
Of course incorrect usage makes its way into the language. What’s interesting about those solecisms is that they are distinct, and don’t fall into patterns for the simple reason (Hiya, Occam!) that mistakes are individualistic.
When you see patterns, then you need to toss out the supposition that a mistake can account for them. The seeming semantic reversal of a common phrase that yet retains its meaning is seen frequently, as has been cited numerous times in this thread.
That is not accidental, not mistaken. It is deliberate. No communication has been lost, because the very intention is that the meaning remains unchanged. I cited evidence even from a doubter that the deliberate intonation is heard in real world speech. Every piece of actual evidence points in the same direction. No one on your side has posted any evidence against it, merely assertions and digressions about irrelevancies.
Can you cite any use of the phrase that both predates its current meaning and means what the words literally and individually mean? If not, speaking of how the phrase has been undermined is nonsensical, since it didn’t exist prior to its current meaning.
I claimed no such thing. I claimed that I could express the condition that it literally describes in clear language, not that I could use it for such an expression. Please read more carefully.
It’s an excellent thing I never said that, innit?
Um, what are you talking about?
“Head over heels” originated as a misstatement of “Heels over head”. It is now used by professional writers. What part of that are you having trouble understanding?
You do get that a thing having happened would tend to nullify your hypothesis that it is “impossible”, don’t you?
In your opinion. But none of the “explanations” for the contrary are even close to be convincing. They are just rationalizations trying to apologize for what is most likely a mistake.
I’m surprised this thread has not been moved yet. It is quite obvious there is no “correct” answer.
Cecil dealt with the subject once a few years ago. Growing up I always heard I couldn’t care less, but when I went to Chicago I heard the idiot version.
From here
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/head_over_heels
This is not a misstatement, but an improvement. Language sometimes/often evolves into better forms. I beseech you, think it possible that you are wrong.
You say it’s deliberate, yet a debate has been raging for some five pages now quoting a variety of authorities contradicting each other trying to come up with theories about just exactly what the “deliberate” intent of this nonsense actually was, because it sure isn’t obvious. And among them is the theory that it’s simply a corruption of the original expression due to some combination of sloppy speech or mishearing – certainly as plausible a theory as any of the others, and to my mind, a great deal more plausible.
If solecisms didn’t fall into patterns, they wouldn’t make it into the language. The assertion that systematic patterns of misuse don’t occur as a result of ignorant mistakes (and the promulgation thereof), but only through deliberate creativity, is just absolute nonsense, and if you believe it then you must not do a lot of reading on the Internet.
Which has already been suggested here. Personally, if I found myself resorting to Grammar Girl over Arnold Zwicky I’d concede my case.
I have no idea what point you think you’re making with that cite. I see 15 different types of mistakes, with no common pattern among them. You’re making my point that mistakes are individual with a cite that shows that to be true. How can you possibly think that helps your case?
I’m not “resorting” to anything, and your ad hominem doesn’t really help your argument. I’m just pointing out a perfectly plausible hypothesis for how this confusingly illogical expression may have come into use.
Well, what you should be seeing is 15 different examples of mistakes arising out of ignorance that are being systematically promulgated, exactly as “could care less” may have been promulgated through persistent repetition of the same mistake.
I’m not saying that the above hypothesis is necessarily correct, only that it’s a very plausible explanation for the corruption of – or variance from, if you prefer – the clarity of the original. You’re the one claiming absolute authority about how it must have really originated despite the fact that clearly no one really knows.
We are still, for some unfathomable reason, in GQ, where it is legitimate not merely to demand cites but to scrutinize the quality of those cites. Hey, I’ve even heard that the rest of the Board may work the same way. A cite that offers secondhand information from better sites is better than nothing, I suppose, but I continue to suspect that the reason no proper cites have been given is that none exist. Outside the one that I gave. The one that nonetheless admits the possibility of sarcasm as an original source.