It has never become correct, and never will, no matter how many times you hear it. Please correct anyone you hear using it improperly. I do, even though I get some dirty looks, etc. I just tell them that I am a teacher, and with all of the poor grammar used by students, making corrections has become a habit.
Next thing you know “anyways” and “irregardless” will both be considered acceptable.
Keep fighting the ignorance.
Irregardless, the meanings are simular. You’re essentually saying the same thing.
“Could care less.”
Simply bad English - and considering you heard Bush say it, well - 'nuf said.
Another example of bad English is when someone asks:
Do you mind if I read your newspaper?
and the other person says, “Sure.”
“Sure” - meaning you do mind? So I shouldn’t read your paper?
It seems the positive response is now interpreted to mean, “NO, I do not mind.”
I have no idea what you would say if you didn’t want them to read the paper, but hey - it’s just a newspaper and I couldn’t care less.
The use of “could care less” as a susbstitute for “couldn’t care less” seems to have become prevalent in the 1970s. I remember that when I was a senior in high school (1973-1974) my American History teacher used to make a special point of correcting students who said “could care less”.
I recall too that it was at about this time that comedian George Carlin started remarking on the use of “could care less” in his monologues. As he observed, if you say “you could care less”, it must be that you still care. For instance: Dr. Martin Luther King cared a great deal about racial equality. In fact, I guess you could accurately say he could have cared less about racial equality.
In the 1980s, linguist Jim Quinn observed in his book American Tongue in Cheek that people who say “could care less” are, in effect, saying something such as: “well, perhaps I care, but it is only a very, very little, and, with sustained effort, I might hold even less interest on this point.” This is more-or-less the meaning they are conveying, but I really doubt many people are giving the phrase that much thought when they use it. Mostly, I suspect, they are like students my history teacher used to challenge; it would turn out that they hadn’t been giving any thought to what they were literally saying. Sometimes, I think, people who say “could care less” honestly think they are saying “couldn’t care less” but are not paying sufficient attention to hear what is coming out.
As for the word “irregardless”,it has been around for a good deal longer. H. L. Mencken commented on it in his book The American Language. He suggested that the word was a blend of “regardless” and some other word, such as “irrespective”.
While “irregardless” doesn’t have much going for it in terms of logic, it seems to me that the choice between “irregardless” and “regardless” is similar to the choice between “imflammable” and “flammable” or “ravel” and “unravel”.
While we are on the subject of emerging usages, does it bother anyone but me when people use the word “like” to mean “such as” or “including”, rather than to mean “similar to”? It seems to me that this used to be prevalent only in informal speech, but now otherwise very well-spoken people such as reporters on National Public Radio do it all the time, even when reading from a script.
For instance, a reporter might say something such as: “shows on cable like The Sopranos and Six Feet Under attract viewers by offering material which broacast stations cannot air.” Taken literally, it would seem that the reporter means that there are shows on cable similar to The Sopranos and Six Feet Under, and these are the shows he is discussing. From the context, though, the reporter it becomes clear that he is actually referring to the The Sopranos and Six Feet Under specifically, and actually means “shows including The Sopranos and Six Feet Under” or “shows like The Sopranos and Six Feet Under”.
Am I the only one bothered by this?
I’m searching for where I posted about this before but the hamsters are balking. Here is what I believe to be the Straight Dope(if I may be so bold):
I am slowing searching through it but I have a copy of “the Power Elite” by C. Wright Mills,1956. I can’t quote exactly but it contains a phrase like “The elite know nothing of the affairs of common people and could care less[than nothing]”. So I think “Could care less” is a shortening of that phrase meaning originally “I don’t know and I really don’t care”.
Will post exact quote if I can find it, that’s a short phrase in 350+ pages.
Oh my GAWD, it drives me crazy when people say they could care less!!! :mad: Jesus H. Christ, people… you could care less? Cool, so then you care. Oh, you meant you could not care less? Well then I guess that means you don’t give a shit. You have no idea how insane it drives me when people screw it up. I’m so glad to see someone else is pissed off too. Arrggghh!!!
I’ve always imagined that it’s hard to cram four consecutive consonant sounds together, as in “couldn’t care”.
It seems to me that I heard “could care less” as a nonsensical substitute for “couldn’t care less” in the late 1960’s in Southern California. (e.g., “So you think it’s bitchin. Well I could care less.”) Anyway, “could care less” I care about less than “try and” in place of “try to.”
This phrase used to bother me, too, until someone pointed out to me that it is meant ironically. Sure, the phrase is probably often used by people who don’t understand that its meant to be ironic, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is. And IMO the world can stand a bit more irony, so I’m all for it.
There’s no need to tax your brain trying to come up with a grammatical interpretation of this phrase that makes sense. Maybe it’s a fun exercise in etymology but 99% of the people who say it don’t give it any thought at all because they don’t need to. “I could care less” is an (American English) idiom that means “I don’t care at all.” Everybody knows exactly what it means, even the pedants who don’t approve of it.
Yes, it’s socially unacceptable to some, but it is in no way incorrect, ungrammatical, or any indication of laziness or ignorance on the part of whomever you hear using it. You would think grammar mavens could delight in this degree of subtlety- an idiom that has the exact opposite meaning of its literal interpretation- but no. I always wonder why they don’t erupt in the same kind of fury about “head over heels” which has a meaning quite at odds with its literal interpretation.
My pet theory is that there are a small, established set of grammatical criticisms meant to establish those who complain about them as intelligent people. They’re pretty stupid criticisms if you know anything about linguistics, but it cannot be denied they are an effective way to look smart if you take the time to memorize them and show them off.
-fh
Sorry… for some reason I thought I was in IMHO when I posted that. Mods, if this is too opinionated for GQ, feel free to delete or edit it.
-fh
Nice site, samclem. hazel-rah, I ask only because it really jars (and perplexes) whenever I hear it, being unused this side of the pond, and because it has an opposite that is always used. I agree with your opinion re. laziness.
Without excusing slovenly usage I use the phrase “I could care less, but not much” in preference to “I couldn’t care less”. It gives a nice gradient of indifference.
Sounds to me like people misheard what was spoken, didn’t care enough to quesition the logic of “could care less,” and just continued to use it improperly.
hazel-rah.
Thank you. I was just about to write something similar, but you did it much more better 
The wonderful thing about the English language is it’s mutability. I get annoyed more by people who forget the main purpose of language is to communicate, not to folllow rules.
I think anyone who thinks that one can say that such a phrase is “wrong” is a constipated would-be (or maybe a real) English teacher. As for the original post, I recall very well where and from whom I first heard the phrase. It was in Louisiana by a native of New Orleans and my interpretation, then and now is something like, “I could care less…but it might be hard to think of when.” Perhaps you wouldn’t want to use the phrase, but to actually correct someone who is using it is really the height of arrogance.
I have used, “Cheap at half the price” and I know exactly what it means. It is overpriced by a factor of less than 2. There are many other illogical phrases for you word dicks to complain about. How about, “All that glitters [or glistens or glisters] is not gold”. The original, which was in Latin said, “Not all that glitters is gold.” What about, “Have your cake and eat it too”?, which bugged the Unabomber.
I’m sorry, jjimm, my little rant wasn’t directed at your OP which was pretty neutral. It was the responses (italics mine):
Another source of info on the phrase (although samclem’s is pretty nice) is the alt.english.usage FAQ.
Now I can allow that there might be some confusion as the uniquely American version of the phrase didn’t replace the original but exists alongside it, but there is simply no need to set them up as competitors or suggest that using one instead of the other is a indicator of ignorance or laziness.
-fh
Hmm, I haven’t found the quote as I’ve been busy. I still think I’m right though.
From samclem’s first link
"It seems to have reached the US some time in the 1950s and to have become popular in the latter part of that decade. The inverted form I could care less was coined in the US and is found only there. "
That would fit in with the printing date of “The Power Elite”-1956. I’m not going to get a chance to go through the book until the weekend. Does anyone have a link for it online that I might text search(have found only short exerpts)?
Not the same. There are two different prefixes “in-”. The prefix “in-” that starts “inflammable” (not “imflammable”) is not the negator “in-”, in such words as “inability” or “incautious”.
The other prefix “in-” functions as an intensifier, as in, well, “intense”, which takes something that was already “tense” and makes it “intense”.
There is only one prefix “ir-”, on the other hand, and it is a negator.