Yeah. I can believe that, it’s unbelievable.
See; happens all the time.
I don’t view these as “defenses” of the idiom at all. They’re just trying to figure out why an idiom morphed into its opposite. There’s no value judgment involved. It may have been simple error. It may have not been. I don’t see what the problem is in exploring the possible sources for the inversion of the original sentence.
I think most, if not all of the posters here (myself included), would agree with the post you are responding to. Nobody here is saying English users don’t make errors and these errors end up catching on. We’re just not convinced this is necessarily an example of such an error. It may be. It may not be. We don’t know.
William Safire himself also uses the idiom, though quite self-consciously and for effect, here.
I don’t believe you. Specifically, I don’t believe you when you profess confusion as to the speaker’s intended meaning when he or she says, “I’m good” in response to, “How are you?”
I think you know exactly what they mean. However, for whatever reason, you deliberately misinterpret them, and then put a smiley after your misinterpretation, in the same way that people deliberately misinterpret “I could care less.”
In such cases, the problem isn’t with the speaker, nor is the problem with 99% of audiences. The problem is with the 1% of the audience who, for whatever reason, engages in deliberate misinterpretation.
I covered this already, but I guess I’ll repeat myself. “Head over heels” is firmly entrenched in the lexicon, and is the only version that is used now. I would imagine that at the time both “Heels over head” and “Head over heels” existed simultaneously, there were people who objected to the latter as being nonsensical, just as people object to “could care less” now.
I disagree. Quite a few people in this thread are INSISTING that it couldn’t possibly have begun as a error, and are actually becoming visibly upset at the suggestion that it might have. We ARE exploring the possible sources, and I don’t know why it seems to be a problem for some, but certain people seem to be reacting emotionally to the topic.
But there’s exploring, and then there’s doggedly clinging to a belief that doesn’t make any sense. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to how “could care less” is ironic, that doesn’t rely on 100% guesswork and tortured logic.
I disagree with this as well. People here are ABSOLUTELY disagreeing with it. For example:
“Clearly impossible”. That is a pretty strong wording. It’s not really open to interpretation, is it? And that’s just one example. Throughout this thread, the argument keeps getting made that there must be some reason for “could care less” to exist - that it can’t be a result of a simple mistake. Perhaps it’s an inability of some to comprehend that humans are fallible.
The explanation that it’s a simple mistake is also guesswork. You find it the most plausible path to the saying. And, for the millionth time, that’s fine. I don’t find it the most satisfying answer, but it is a possible answer. Your mileage obviously varies. shrug The best we can do in GQ is what I’ve already stated and repeated multiple times: offer up the various possible paths for the saying to have entered the lexicon. If the reader prefers the mishearing/inadvertent turn of phrase explanation over all the others, so be it. It’s simply not factual to say the phrase is based on a mistake. We don’t know that and there are, in my opinion, more plausible alternatives. You quite obviously disagree about their plausibility.
The irony here is that you’ve taken my figurative statement literally. (See how easy it is to miscommunicate?) Of course I know what they really mean. What I’m saying is that I’m consciously aware of the incongruity when I hear it – it’s like a little smiley goes off in my head. Although in the case of the inexplicable “could care less” the incongruity, to me, is annoyingly loud, roughly on a par with seeing someone actually write “I should of bought it” or “you could of told me”.
This is becoming tedious. You don’t find the “mistake” answer satisfying, and I don’t find the “deliberate irony” answer satisfying. So we disagree. How you believe that gives you some sort of moral high ground here, I don’t know. You seem to think everyone on YOUR side is entitled to an opinion, but everyone on MY side is not.
Now that that is (hopefully) cleared up, I don’t think you’ve ever given a really good answer WHY the “mistake” answer doesn’t satisfy you. I have written over and over and over again, a really detailed analysis of why I don’t find the “deliberate irony” answer satisfying, complete with examples. AND, my explanation and examples are based on actual observations, not conjecture that it “could be” like Yiddish or that it “could” be implying words that are not in the expression, or that a third party “remembers” that it used to be said differently. I’m not getting much from you other than your bald statement that you don’t like the “mistake” answer.
The impossible thing is that the expression is only used by millions of morons; I hope I have proved to you that the assumption that it is only used by morons is in fact not the case. Several posters here have said they use it; examples of lingusitic experts using it have been found; many people profess to using it as an ironic or sarcastic statement, or assume that the reader is clever enough to reconstruct the missing negative implied by this idiom. These people are not morons.The idiom (if used correctly) actually requires work by the listener as well as the speaker.
Of course there are also a large body of speakers who never give a thought to the actual construction they are using, just as there are many who do not ever consider the ‘head over heels’ idiom; but that is okay, since the most important thing about an idiom is that it is understood, not that it is logical.
Um, what? Of course you’re entitled to an opinion. I have no idea where this “moral high ground” stuff is coming from. You seem to be taking this thread very personally for some reason, and it’s puzzling, to say the least. Once again, the GQ answer is we don’t know and there are four proposed theories, one of which is that it is a mistake that has been repeated that caught on through mindless repetition. Your opinion is included in the answer I have proposed countless times in this thread. Nowhere have I said your opinion is incorrect. I don’t know that, and in discussing the origin of the phrase, of course error must be mentioned as a possible avenue for it.
I have already mentioned the reasons several times throughout this thread. I don’t know why I need to again. It’s not like we’re covering new ground. Here it is again: I personally find it unlikely that the negative particle got dropped for no reason and it was repeated by English speakers over and over again without anyone noticing along the way. I do observe a different intonation in the phrase often (and the way I say), although I do not call it “sarcasm.” I do think general irony is a possibility for its origin, though. Liberman proposes an interesting “negative by association” theory. I personally think it can be a combination of some of these things (that is, some speakers may say it with deliberate irony, some may not), and not just an inadvertent error. When I use the phrase, I personally hear it as an “[as if] I could care less,” with the “as if/like” removed. Just like “I could give a damn.”
It’s easy to miscommunicate when someone doesn’t know what “figurative” means. Add that to the list of vocabulary words I’m assigning you for homework. You may have meant “hyperbolic,” but indeed it’s impossible to tell when you use words in such a nonstandard way.
I’m sure that’s how you really feel; now you’re telling the truth. And there’s an easy solution to this problem of your weird reaction to perfectly cromulent phrases: get over yourself.
Yes, someone definitely doesn’t know what “figurative” means! 
I have an old Encarta dictionary at my fingertips. Let’s start with that. This is what it says:
1. not literal: using or containing a nonliteral sense of a word or words
Then we have Oxforddictionaries, based on the OED:
Departing from a literal use of words; metaphorical. Middle English: from late Latin* figurativus*, from figurare ‘to form or fashion’
Finally we have this excellent summing-up by Yourdictionary.com (Motto: “Get help with homework”):
There are many different types of figurative language… [for example] Hyperbole: Exaggerating, often in a humorous way, to make a particular point is known as hyperbole
From this we understand that figurative language doesn’t have to be metaphorical to properly be called figurative, as I imagine you probably thought; it only has to be intended to have a non-literal interpretation – similes, metaphors, and hyperbole can all be examples of figurative speech. “The fact that there is an obscure sense in which “good” is allowed to mean “well” does not dissuade me from thinking, every time I hear “I’m good”, that the person is either on the straight and narrow path to salvation (or at least in good standing on Santa’s list) or else possesses some notable skill” is a perfect example of figurative speech. It is figurative and hyperbolic.
You’re welcome.
Indeed. You just spent a lot of words to defend the idea that you think, “every time I hear “I’m good”, that the person is either on the straight and narrow path to salvation (or at least in good standing on Santa’s list) or else possesses some notable skill,” and that we should interpret that figuratively. This on top of your insistence that “I could care less” isn’t an idiom, that “I’m good” is incorrect, and a dozen other misinterpretations of the language.
Pardon me if I don’t take you at your word in the future; for all I know, you’ll excuse all future errors and disingenuities as figurative speech, on the basis that they’re not literally correct.
Edit: to be clear, even if you meant “hyperbolic,” it was a terrible example of hyperbole, consisting of an untruth instead of the sort of extreme exaggeration that characterizes hyperbole. While it’s the closest version of figurative speech to your statement, it doesn’t apply. I was being generous, not offering you an escape route.
You are demonstrably in no position to lecture me on any manner of linguistics. Others in the thread, far more knowledgeable than you, are–but not you.
No, with regard to what “figurative” means, what you were was not “generous”, you were wrong.
Honestly, I get the impression this is just arguing for the sake of argument, and I’m a little bewildered by the hostile tone. Everyone makes mistakes, including me, but this wasn’t one. I really don’t care (or perhaps I can coin an “idiom” and say that I care! :D) but when someone with a misconception about what a word means suggests that I’m the one who doesn’t know what it means, it seems reasonable to point out the mistake. With all respect, your allegation about “figurative” was wrong, period. Three dictionaries clearly disagree with you. Let it go.
You seriously think what you said was a good example of hyperbole? ooookay.
Just out of curiosity I did a little more poking around on Google Books, and it looks like using “could care less” to mean “could not care less” was fairly common by the early 1960s. Some of the examples I found are a bit iffy – they’re from later editions of works originally published in the '60s (e.g. a script for Heidi, the back cover of a collection of Albee plays) so we can’t be 100% certain what the original edition really said – but this letter to the editor of Ebony magazine does look to be genuinely from a 1962 issue. This article in the Princeton Alumni Weekly has the 1965 date right on the page.
Well, it’s coming from what you wrote, which was, in part:
“The best we can do in GQ is what I’ve already stated and repeated multiple times: offer up the various possible paths for the saying to have entered the lexicon. If the reader prefers the mishearing/inadvertent turn of phrase explanation over all the others, so be it. It’s simply not factual to say the phrase is based on a mistake.”
You’re trying to make it sound like your side is just “exploring alternatives” while my side is trying to “factually say the phrase is based on a mistake”, which is frankly, bullshit.
No, YOU are taking it personally. I’m trying to dissuade you from doing so.
Yes, I know. You’ve said that. But the question was, WHY do you find it unlikely?
Then how is that relevant?
Perhaps I misunderstood you then. If you’re simply saying that you think the inadvertent turn of phrase origin is the most likely in your opinion, but not necessarily the only possible origin, then I have no beef.
I assure you, I am not taking this personally.
I’m not sure what more you want me to say about it.
Because a change in tone indicates the phrase is being used in some special way, otherwise, why the change in tone? But I’m not sure how I would describe it.
ETA: First reply should read:
Perhaps I misunderstood you then. If you’re simply saying that you think the inadvertent turn of phrase origin is the most likely in your opinion, but not necessarily the only possible origin, then I have no beef. If this is all you’re saying, then I sincerely apologize for mischaracterizing your point of view. I might have conflated it with other posters.