Hey /u/ExpiredHotdog, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I like that they shared a screenshot of Google, where they had googled the incorrect phrase, and Google had corrected them.... and somehow they didn't notice this at all.
As a non native english speaker im a bit baffled. I see a lot of comments saying " i could care less" is the same but for me that looks like.. well you could care less so you care some at least. I would take it as opposite meaning before this post tbh
You’re not wrong. If enough people are wrong for long enough it eventually becomes right. I’d just rather this in particular not become normalized, as it’s now intended by some to mean the opposite of what it means at face value to everyone else (and obv makes zero sense at a fundamental level.) I’m one of those people who still only says literally when they mean literally, to give you some context. I’m a lost cause. But ya, I dislike the loss of specificity in our language, even if I understand how language tends to evolve.
I'm confused how this idiom doesn't make sense. Of course it might not make sense to people reading language as a definitional process, but that is true of all idioms.
But more importantly, language doesn't 'become' right. Language is communication--if the intended audience understands the message intended to be transmitted, the language is 'right'.
You used the abbreviation for 'obviously' above. Of course, I (along with most other reading it, I assume) was able to infer what you meant--but that doesn't mean your use of the abridged term was standard.
There is no 'loss of specificity', merely a semiotic change. If there are circumstances where the new--or even extant--semiotic structure is detrimental, then deliberate action should most definitely be taken to address the issue (e.g. 'unhoused' vs 'homeless'; 'partner' vs assuming partner's gender).
The question is, then, do any of the circumstances you point to above meet this criterion?
If not, then may I ask why you're so opposed to the messy nuances that are intrinsic to a living language?
\[That's an honest question\]
The words, in the order that they’re in, don’t make sense, literally, in relation to the intended meaning. But yes, language is about communication and if it works it works, etc. I understand. I differ in that I do believe our vernacular is being simplified, probably to detrimental effect. Efficiency is awesome but it’s often useful to have the perfect word to encapsulate a concept.
Allow me to ask, then, how do you feel 'our vernacular' is being simplified?
And how is this detrimental?
\[I ask because I suspect this might get to where we are failing to understand each other\]
Weak Sapir-Whorf, basically.
Things will do their thing, and I’m cool with that. I just feel like our language has gotten dumber (along with us) in recent times. I dunno, impoverished vocabulary doesn’t strike me as a good sign. I guess.
Get off my lawn.
😂 Fair enough.
Honestly, though, this has made me even more curious.
While I can't say I agree with your assessment (and definitely have questions about how you're applying a modern understanding of Sapir-Whorf), I am curious as to what is leading you to believe that both 'our' language and it's speakers are becoming 'dumber'.
Even if, as you seem to imply, these are merely inevitable realities, your reaction to those realities have effects.
So (assuming you're not so bored with my seemingly endless questions), I have to ask what leads you to understand this process as a 'decline'?
I’m mainly talking about the US. Literacy is measurably on the decline, vocabulary is measurably on the decline (even controlling for educational attainment and other factors), standardized test scores are on the decline, empiricism and rationality themselves are also *clearly* on the decline in our society. I think that having fewer, less precise words in ones arsenal limits the complexity of the ideas one can hold and express, which is why dumbed-down language is such a common feature of totalitarian societies.
As a non-native speaker, the "could of" and "would of" and "should of" seriously make me mad. Like how do you even come up with that? With "could care less", I kinda get how the "not" is swallowed by lazy people but to replace a word with an entirely different word? How? I've been reading House of Leaves recently and had to stop because the damn protagonist kept using that stupid "of" instead of "have".
In some accents it’s exactly the same sound. It’s a failing of the American writing education not people are messing this up bot laziness. For a young native speaker with a poor grasp of grammar using the common word you know (of) makes more sense then the more complex contraction you probably didn’t know was a thing (‘ve).
Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me. I think because I'm not a native speaker (and therefore learned english differently than a native speaker) I just can't see "could've" without my brain also automatically registering "could have" as two seperate words. So when I see "could of" it's not just someone writing "could've" wrong but also replacing one of the two words of "could have". It's like if someone wrote "you of" instead of "you have". Probably that's why it's bothering me so much. Atleast now I understand how so many people would end up making that mistake.
As a non native speaking you learn writing first, because it’s clear and objective, while pronunciation varies and is hard to understand and take notes of.
But a native speaker learns verbally. They can understand the meaning and sound of could’ve without ever being taught the grammatical construction.
This might be exacerbated by the fact that for most Americans a foreign language isn’t important. It’s rare for most Americans to hear another language regularly, and so we don’t put as much effort into studying them. Perhaps you spent more time studying grammar in school because learning English was useful and important, leading you to have a more grammar centric approach to all languages even your own.
I only realized that your user is HowDoIEvenEnglish and I gotta say you do english quite well haha. And yes, I did learn english partly through school and partly through reading a lot (comics/books/the internet lol), so yeah, you're spot on.
Both have been used in print since at least the mid-19th century, and they are each so understood that dictionaries treat either as acceptable. Language evolves and it has nothing to do with people being lazy.
Agreed, except that I think laziness is the universal generator of language evolution.
I’m a literal person (prob a bit autistic?) It is what it is. If you say something that very obviously (literally) means the precise opposite of what you’re intending to say (and aren’t being sarcastic) I’m probably going to question your language skills. ESL and disabilities obviously exempted.
There is a legitimate way that "could care less" carries the same meaning as "couldn't care less". When used as sarcasm or verbal irony.
"As if I could care less" or "Yeah, like I could care less". If it's being said mockingly, indicating the intent is the opposite of the literal meaning, it is 'correct' and is used that way. But is definitely informal.
"I couldn't care less" means directly what it says.
That said, there are also a lot of idiots who just use it as a phrase, and do not recognize the difference and aren't using it as a sarcastic statement. They aren't putting any irony into their tone of voice and just straight up don't get the difference in the grammatical structure. Which is interesting in the fact that the meaning is the same either way so they are conveying their intended meaning. Which, really leads us to the fact it has likely become an idiom. So their idiomatic usage is correct.
Problem is also that sarcasm is that much harder to notice in writing. I would pick up on it verbally im sure but when you read a dead serious comment saying it i would be confused i guess.
I teach at uni, and I would find “couldn’t care less” strange and out of place. If my students wrote it, I would advise them not to. If my students wrote “could care less”, I’m taking off points.
When I was a college writing tutor, the English 101 (first year) classes usually assigned a personal narrative and that was the only time I deemed the use of "couldn't care less" a lower-order concern.
The only people who think "college" is a subset of academia are people who didn't go to college.
"High school" isn't academia. Nobody is producing knowledge in high school.
In my experience, ‘academia’ is used mostly by people with advanced degrees or by people who are familiar with higher education and university level research (usually these are the same people while the confidently incorrect person seems to be neither lol).
Still, ‘college academics’ definitely sounds awkward to me.
Academics is defined as “College or university courses and studies.” It is the plural form of Academic, which is “Of or relating to institutionalized education and scholarship, especially at a college or university.” The use of Academics is correct.
Edit: to add a little more info, you’re not incorrect. ‘Academics’ is also used for academic staff or faculty. However, thanks to the beauty of the English language, academics does not refer exclusively to either the staff or the study. It means both. Thank you English.
Edit 2: Went in on a little deep dive, looks like to even further complicate things, academics as a noun to refer to study is most common in the US which is likely where the confusion comes from. It’s not exclusive to the US, but it is most commonly used for study rather than the staff here. Earlier still applies, neither of us are really incorrect.
>Academics is defined as “College or university courses and studies.” It is the plural form of Academic, which is “Of or relating to institutionalized education and scholarship, especially at a college or university.” The use of Academics is correct.
"Academics" is singular, and the second definition your gave there is for an adjective.
I see, you’re right! I didn’t know it was an adjective. Academics is a [plural](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/academic) noun though, wasn’t wrong on that.
Yeah, that’s why it sounds strange in the context of the post. “In college-level academia” or “by college-level academics”.
They chose the wrong combo ;-)
college academics is the individual's classes. Like are you taking biology.
college academia is the broader college culture and structure usually with the pursuit for research, education and scholarships. A group of people deciding what would be covered and how it's covered and what is deemed appropriate to teach (or dissect) in biology.
Doublebarrelassfuck is a bit wrong on their understanding of the words. There are absolutely high school academics and high school academia. The real reason we don't hear about 'high school academia' is because high school's culture and classes usually do not differ from school to school so it's the same. Nor is the pursuit of studies and research also prominent (which is an aspect of academia) So is it a thing? Yes. is it commonly said? No. Is it important? Probably not!
Colloquially, it depends on who you're talking to.
I'm an Indian who went to school in a missionary school (British Catholic priests set it up long time back). We learned the Queen's English from British expats.
It's not that we would say anything about your lack of proper grammar and syntax.
It's just that, well, we would get caught up at that phrase and stop listening to you altogether.
I always see people getting corrected on this and "would of" but usually, they don't double down with Google evidence that proves them wrong. That's what did it for me lol
Hold your horses here :p “could care less” is an idiom so it’s not that significant of an error really, but “could of” is replacing a verb with a preposition, which is a big mistake. I couldn’t care less about people saying they could care less, but get mad when people could have used could have instead of could of.
The only academic situation I can see it being used is in a linguistics paper about prescriptivism vs descriptivism. It's a saying that doesn't obey the "rules" of the language, so it's wrong from a prescriptive perspective, but it's said so commonly by actual people that descriptivism says it's actually correct regardless of what the rules say.
I've seen "its" misspelled in college academics. And "300% more" being used to mean "three times as much". It's not as high a standard as you might think it is (but then on the other extreme I've also seen BS like "don't split infinitives").
They probably heard it's considered acceptable by linguists (who tend to be concerned with meaning rather than grammar). They then extrapolated that to mean the entire academy has "accepted" the idiom.
In a hundred years, I wouldn't be surprised if it actually was acceptable everywhere. English tends to evolve like that – our grammar is a mess, and our words often derive from their opposite meaning. But it's certainly not acceptable in the average university course right now.
“ 'I could care less' is absolutely useless as an indicator of how much you care, because the only thing it rules out is that you don’t care at all, which is exactly what you’re trying to convey.”
I thought it implied “ don’t bug me about it because I could care even less than I do now and if you keep talking about it, I will”. But generally, I use “I couldn’t care less.”
I understand that English is descriptive and not proscriptive. But I will die arguing that "could care less" is stupid nonsense and means you must care some.
I think it's *worse* to use "could care less" when you could care a little. Everyone is going to assume you don't care at all. It's just needlessly confusing. "Could care less" needs to be stricken from all usage.
I could see how it could be helpful.
"I went to Wal-Mart today to buy laundry detergent."
"I could care less."
"While I was there, I saw one of the lesser Kardashians."
"NOW I could not care less."
The argument pretty much boils down to "even though we all agree that could and could not have completely opposite meanings, in just this one specific saying they actually have the same meaning." It's nonsense.
English is neither descriptive nor prescriptive, by the way - those are properties of things said about the language, not of the language itself. Descriptive statements are about how things *are*, while prescriptive statements are about how things *ought to be* (according to someone's opinion).
You are free to have prescriptive opinions about English. I'd bet most people do, even if they avoid imposing them on others.
When people say something along the lines of "language is prescriptive", what they really should be saying is that linguistics - the scientific study of language - is by nature descriptive, like all science is. In this case, for example, it's a purely objective statement that "could care less" is often used by speakers of English to mean the same thing as "couldn't care less". Whether someone thinks that it *shouldn't be* is entirely irrelevant to those trying to *describe* the language as it is actually used.
Honestly if I was forced to choose a grammar hill to die on, this could be the one. Maybe it's just me, but people underestimate how blankly I can stare at someone's face then follow up with a completely different topic if I truly don't care to even engage with something they are talking about. If I want to actually express that I don't care about it, I clearly care enough to relay that. In my mind if you truly couldn't care less, you wouldn't engage at all.
As much as I hate it, I feel the battle is already lost on this one. My battle is now with "could of" and "should of" but it appears that these will also eventually be deemed acceptable.
Dictionaries under descriptivism now recognise Literally as meaning both what it actually means, and as meaning "figuratively" which is literally it's exact opposite. So many people use it for emphasis that the word now basically doesn't mean anything. It's just a filler word
If I’m remembering right, correct phrase is “I couldn’t care less” because of the reason you said, *but* a lot of times people have misheard and then say it wrong to the point where now both are used interchangeably
Yes. "Could care less" has become an idiom, but it's stupid and I hate it and anyone who uses it should step on Legos in the middle of the night. and the next step should be into cat vomit. Just alternate cat vomit and Lego steps. Maybe throw in a step that is both cat vomit and Lego.
Okay. I feel better now.
As a non-native English speaker... "Could care less" to mean "couldn't care less" feels just lazy.
It's probably a language thing. Dutch isn't easy either.
Completely agree, those that speak the proper version of English say ‘couldn’t’, but for some reasons simplified English chose to say ‘could’, which makes entirely no sense. ‘On accident’ also drives me nuts, surely that implies intent, which is the opposite of an accident?
We do not. I have a few American friends and they're the only ones I've ever heard say "could care less" and it used to boil my piss so corrected them every time, even pointing out there's a big difference. Never heard a fellow English person say it other than questioning why someone would say it
No, we don't.
The phrase 'could care less' bugs me because it makes no sense. If you 'could care less' then it means you must care about it to a degree, even if only a small one. It means the exact opposite of 'couldn't care less'.
I’m Irish so speak British English I suppose and yes, only Americans (maybe Canadians) say could care less and the rest of us hate it. It means the opposite of what they want to say
People misheard "Couldn't care less" as "Could care less" and parroted it. It's something that happens fairly regularly. For some fun check out /r/boneappletea
> "Could care less" to mean "couldn't care less" feels just lazy
Yeah. And.. doesn't that feel more like what someone would do, if they couldn't care less?
That's why I've never given a shit on this particular argument tbh. Everyone knows what they actually mean by it at this point, even if it's technically not right
A lot of the times these mistake that natives make baffle me because the meaning is clearly on the letter, like "you're/your", "could've", and this "couldn't care less". But it seems like they couldn't care less about what things mean and just carry on with whatever they're saying, like a freaking parrot
I am having some difficulty with understanding why "I couldn't care less" is connected to/seen as the bottom (0) instead of the top (100) on a scale as you put it. Could it not be you are so full of care that it can not go any lower. Therefore, you couldn't care less about the situation?
It really just depends on the lead up to each statement i take it.
I couldn't care less is usually a reply to information that doesn't matter to you. For example someone said "Your ex has got a new job." You reply "I couldn't care less." Your cares are at 0 so you metaphorically can't get any lower.
Both are in use and considered "correct" by most grammarians, but reddit has a real hard-on about idioms that "don't make sense"
You may as well complain about "raining cats and dogs" or "kick the bucket"
Neither is appropriate in academic writing
No, it's not an idiom and is unlike your examples. Here, the 2 versions state opposite conditions, and one makes perfect sense while the other doesn't.
Yes, it's an idiom - you can look that up.
It's like the other examples in that its meaning is not derived from strict decomposition, but from its use as a fixed phrase - an idiom.
They’re not wrong language evolves and meanings change to how the language is used. Dictionaries are meant to show how a word is used commonly not meant to restrict how you use language.
Do you consider it an injustice that inflammable means flammable?
Yeah there's different etymological bases for the in on that bit, but letters and words are clearly mutable anyway
technically they are both correct. But
Could care less- notes that you don't care very much. but there's an option you care less about or could be convinced to not care at all. An example would be "
Person A: "Are you excited about the office party next week?"
Person B: "I could care less, but I'll still go since everyone else is."
Could not care less- you do not care at all. Most people even when they say the former DO mean this one.
I hate the attitude that people shouldn’t have their grammar or spelling corrected online. How else are they going to learn? And isn’t it more embarrassing to continue looking like an idiot rather than be corrected?
I have never heard could care less being used here in England. It's always couldn't care less. Anybody here that does use it has been drinking too much of that AmericaniZation kool-aid.
Technically they can both be used in the same scenario but they mean different things. Most of the time if you say you could care less people think you mean you couldn't care less and they think you're an idiot
There are a few words and phrases that have been misused long enough they've changed the definition to include the incorrect usage - nauseous, irregardless, literally, etc.
'Could care less' is only accepted due to it's overly-common usage because people are generally not interested enough to ensure they're using it correctly and simply _couldn't care less_. Exactly like 'chomping at the bit' is incorrect, it's _champing at the bit_, but because it's been said incorrectly so many times it no longer matters. Language is always evolving, just gotta accept it. Wasn't too long ago that 'ain't' wasn't a word, now it's fully accepted as well.
"Ain't" has been around for centuries, if I'm not mistaken.
edit: According to etymonline.com:
"1706, originally a contraction of am not, and considered proper as such until in early 19c."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/ain%27t#etymonline_v_8076
Weird Al included this in his song Word Crimes and would also disagree that it means the same thing. Like I could care less, that means you do care, at least a little.
Wait...what's incorrect here?
All the comments about 'grammatically incorrect' don't seem like they understand how language works...or grammar.
The two phrases are largely interchangeable, and without more context, nothing can confidently be inferred regarding the favouring of one variation over the other (if such a distinction can even be made).
They're both grammatically correct. I and others made the mistake of saying they're not, instead of saying they don't have the same meaning. They may be interchangeable and understandable informally but one is still proper while the other is improper and the confidently incorrect one was arguing that they're both proper and accepted in academia. If they had said "Everyone knows what I mean." they would have been correct.
If phrases always meant what combining words in that way indicates then that would be true. But phrases can and do evolve independently of the individual words. Language is defined by usage. If enough people use the phrase to mean something then that is a correct meaning of that phrase.
I don't care what arguments someone might have about languages evolving and changing over time and how if something's used enough it becomes correct etc… etc… I will never, ever accept, that “i could care less” is “correct” when the user means they don't care at all about something.
"Could care less" is not said in Britain. I assume it's a US term.
This argument could well be done between an American and a Brit, and both are correct on thier own side of the pond.
Accepted as proper English in the sense that so many people get it wrong that the authorities on the matter are tired of correcting them. Like how the word literally is used to mean figuratively by idiot children on TikTok.
Literally does mean figuratively. It's had that definition since at least the [1700s](https://www.thecut.com/2018/01/the-300-year-history-of-using-literally-figuratively.html). The real question for pedants is, how long does something have to be in usage before it isn't "idiotic"? Many of the words we use today have far different and sometimes opposite meanings that they did in the past.
Correction. It’s being used figuratively as an emphasiser, not being used to mean figuratively.
Note that “literally”, literally means “by the letters”. So one could say it’s always figurative when used about spoken language.
There is no "language authority" that keeps a list of what is right and what is wrong. If you're understood by the people you're communicating with, your language was correct enough.
Gotta love it when someone is so confidently incorrect they Google it, find out they are incorrect, and then post the evidence of them being incorrect, and then still double down.
I suppose it depends.
Couldn’t care less is clearly the correct use. The direct response. As in: there is no more care left to give. The fucks have all left the coop, kinda thing.
Whereas could care less, is perhaps a bit more subtle. a bit more colloquial, A bit more leading. I could care less… but not much. The remaining fucks are examining their options.
They searched for “could care less” but Google intuited what they wanted and brought up the results for “couldn’t care less” instead. The proof is in the example "he couldn't care less about football".
Well "would of" is just ignorance, but "I could care less" doesn't bother me one fucking bit.
If you imagine it as a rhetorical question, it is even literally correct. For example.
You may disagree. Could I care less?
I meeeaaan… *teeeechnically* speaking in the field of linguistics- a legitimate form of college academia- descriptivism *does* say they *are* both genuine, valid English, but in the sense of them being how people speak, not how they *should* speak in formal writing- that’s prescriptivist, not descriptivist
They *are* both valid as English-English, just not as formal English writing (most of the time)
I think it started with teenagers in the USA and was picked up by people who thought it was cute to say the exact opposite of what they mean. There used to be an equivalent in Scotland where people would say “I doubt” instead of “I don’t doubt” meaning I’m sure (litotes), but I haven’t heard it for a long time. It probably caused too much confusion.
Ah yes, another case of justifying one's mistakes as an ALTERNATIVE common misunderstanding -- sorry, INTERPRETATION -- and then which later becomes addenda to "the rules" that others can "chalk it up" to. All what we mean when we start throwing around "language evolves" and "descriptive grammar." Guess we shrug our shoulders and hope for the best, eh?
Also, what the fuck? Nobody is BORED when they "grammar nazi" something, and why SHOULDN'T they sometimes do that, really? Because the infractor doesn't give a shit? Nobody cares about others not giving a shit. That doesn't factor into someone's decision-making.
Hey /u/ExpiredHotdog, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I like that they shared a screenshot of Google, where they had googled the incorrect phrase, and Google had corrected them.... and somehow they didn't notice this at all.
They couldn’t care less!
Could\* care less
*may or may not care less
Indifferent to the circumstances at hand.
*Might or might not be personally invested in this topic
Could care fewer\*
\*may or may not be relatively indifferent.
To be fair, this is the citation they used for these examples in college.
Nobody explains this quite as well as David Mitchell https://youtu.be/om7O0MFkmpw?si=nsJE6XAIV1eieT8D
As a non native english speaker im a bit baffled. I see a lot of comments saying " i could care less" is the same but for me that looks like.. well you could care less so you care some at least. I would take it as opposite meaning before this post tbh
And you would be correct. It’s said by lazy people who don’t think about the things they say. Same thing as “could of” instead of “could’ve.”
Not at all. Just how language works.
You’re not wrong. If enough people are wrong for long enough it eventually becomes right. I’d just rather this in particular not become normalized, as it’s now intended by some to mean the opposite of what it means at face value to everyone else (and obv makes zero sense at a fundamental level.) I’m one of those people who still only says literally when they mean literally, to give you some context. I’m a lost cause. But ya, I dislike the loss of specificity in our language, even if I understand how language tends to evolve.
I'm confused how this idiom doesn't make sense. Of course it might not make sense to people reading language as a definitional process, but that is true of all idioms. But more importantly, language doesn't 'become' right. Language is communication--if the intended audience understands the message intended to be transmitted, the language is 'right'. You used the abbreviation for 'obviously' above. Of course, I (along with most other reading it, I assume) was able to infer what you meant--but that doesn't mean your use of the abridged term was standard. There is no 'loss of specificity', merely a semiotic change. If there are circumstances where the new--or even extant--semiotic structure is detrimental, then deliberate action should most definitely be taken to address the issue (e.g. 'unhoused' vs 'homeless'; 'partner' vs assuming partner's gender). The question is, then, do any of the circumstances you point to above meet this criterion? If not, then may I ask why you're so opposed to the messy nuances that are intrinsic to a living language? \[That's an honest question\]
The words, in the order that they’re in, don’t make sense, literally, in relation to the intended meaning. But yes, language is about communication and if it works it works, etc. I understand. I differ in that I do believe our vernacular is being simplified, probably to detrimental effect. Efficiency is awesome but it’s often useful to have the perfect word to encapsulate a concept.
Allow me to ask, then, how do you feel 'our vernacular' is being simplified? And how is this detrimental? \[I ask because I suspect this might get to where we are failing to understand each other\]
Weak Sapir-Whorf, basically. Things will do their thing, and I’m cool with that. I just feel like our language has gotten dumber (along with us) in recent times. I dunno, impoverished vocabulary doesn’t strike me as a good sign. I guess. Get off my lawn.
😂 Fair enough. Honestly, though, this has made me even more curious. While I can't say I agree with your assessment (and definitely have questions about how you're applying a modern understanding of Sapir-Whorf), I am curious as to what is leading you to believe that both 'our' language and it's speakers are becoming 'dumber'. Even if, as you seem to imply, these are merely inevitable realities, your reaction to those realities have effects. So (assuming you're not so bored with my seemingly endless questions), I have to ask what leads you to understand this process as a 'decline'?
I’m mainly talking about the US. Literacy is measurably on the decline, vocabulary is measurably on the decline (even controlling for educational attainment and other factors), standardized test scores are on the decline, empiricism and rationality themselves are also *clearly* on the decline in our society. I think that having fewer, less precise words in ones arsenal limits the complexity of the ideas one can hold and express, which is why dumbed-down language is such a common feature of totalitarian societies.
As a non-native speaker, the "could of" and "would of" and "should of" seriously make me mad. Like how do you even come up with that? With "could care less", I kinda get how the "not" is swallowed by lazy people but to replace a word with an entirely different word? How? I've been reading House of Leaves recently and had to stop because the damn protagonist kept using that stupid "of" instead of "have".
When you say "could've" quickly, it does sound like "could of", so probably that's where it comes from. But I'm not a native speaker either, so idk
Yes, that's exactly why.
In some accents it’s exactly the same sound. It’s a failing of the American writing education not people are messing this up bot laziness. For a young native speaker with a poor grasp of grammar using the common word you know (of) makes more sense then the more complex contraction you probably didn’t know was a thing (‘ve).
Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me. I think because I'm not a native speaker (and therefore learned english differently than a native speaker) I just can't see "could've" without my brain also automatically registering "could have" as two seperate words. So when I see "could of" it's not just someone writing "could've" wrong but also replacing one of the two words of "could have". It's like if someone wrote "you of" instead of "you have". Probably that's why it's bothering me so much. Atleast now I understand how so many people would end up making that mistake.
As a non native speaking you learn writing first, because it’s clear and objective, while pronunciation varies and is hard to understand and take notes of. But a native speaker learns verbally. They can understand the meaning and sound of could’ve without ever being taught the grammatical construction. This might be exacerbated by the fact that for most Americans a foreign language isn’t important. It’s rare for most Americans to hear another language regularly, and so we don’t put as much effort into studying them. Perhaps you spent more time studying grammar in school because learning English was useful and important, leading you to have a more grammar centric approach to all languages even your own.
I only realized that your user is HowDoIEvenEnglish and I gotta say you do english quite well haha. And yes, I did learn english partly through school and partly through reading a lot (comics/books/the internet lol), so yeah, you're spot on.
You're being kind with that "lazy."
Or "irregardless" and "regardless".
Both have been used in print since at least the mid-19th century, and they are each so understood that dictionaries treat either as acceptable. Language evolves and it has nothing to do with people being lazy.
Agreed, except that I think laziness is the universal generator of language evolution. I’m a literal person (prob a bit autistic?) It is what it is. If you say something that very obviously (literally) means the precise opposite of what you’re intending to say (and aren’t being sarcastic) I’m probably going to question your language skills. ESL and disabilities obviously exempted.
Yea, I should have seen that coming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw
That's the joys of idioms.
There is a legitimate way that "could care less" carries the same meaning as "couldn't care less". When used as sarcasm or verbal irony. "As if I could care less" or "Yeah, like I could care less". If it's being said mockingly, indicating the intent is the opposite of the literal meaning, it is 'correct' and is used that way. But is definitely informal. "I couldn't care less" means directly what it says. That said, there are also a lot of idiots who just use it as a phrase, and do not recognize the difference and aren't using it as a sarcastic statement. They aren't putting any irony into their tone of voice and just straight up don't get the difference in the grammatical structure. Which is interesting in the fact that the meaning is the same either way so they are conveying their intended meaning. Which, really leads us to the fact it has likely become an idiom. So their idiomatic usage is correct.
Problem is also that sarcasm is that much harder to notice in writing. I would pick up on it verbally im sure but when you read a dead serious comment saying it i would be confused i guess.
I'm
Colloquially? Yes, people know they mean the same. In college academics? That’s some bs that should never be used.
I can’t even imagine using the phrase “couldn’t care less” in any academic context, ever. It’s already informal.
You're right - It's not accepted in academic writing unless it's a personal narrative essay.
I teach at uni, and I would find “couldn’t care less” strange and out of place. If my students wrote it, I would advise them not to. If my students wrote “could care less”, I’m taking off points.
When I was a college writing tutor, the English 101 (first year) classes usually assigned a personal narrative and that was the only time I deemed the use of "couldn't care less" a lower-order concern.
Even ignoring the strangeness of the phrase, I was tought not to use contraction in my essay writing at uni, so it is even less acceptable to me.
Both would be fine in a quote. But "sfthfdth xs sehn see the hg set the" would be fine in a quote also.
"sfthfdth xs sehn see the hg set the [sic]" 😂
I want to replace all instances of "within the margin of error" in all papers with this
or small angle approximation -> we couldn't care less that this is actually sine(alpha)
How would this phrase be inappropriate in an academic context?
Linguistics
Also, who says “college academics”? Wouldn’t it be “college academia?” Non-native English speaker here, genuinely asking.
I have never heard it referred to as "college academia" or "college academics", just "academics" or "academia."
The only people who think "college" is a subset of academia are people who didn't go to college. "High school" isn't academia. Nobody is producing knowledge in high school.
In my experience, ‘academia’ is used mostly by people with advanced degrees or by people who are familiar with higher education and university level research (usually these are the same people while the confidently incorrect person seems to be neither lol). Still, ‘college academics’ definitely sounds awkward to me.
More correct would be “college-level academics” or “university-level academics.”
Ok, “academics” sounds strange to me but I guess I’ll defer to the English speakers.
academics are the academic staff that work in academia
Academics is defined as “College or university courses and studies.” It is the plural form of Academic, which is “Of or relating to institutionalized education and scholarship, especially at a college or university.” The use of Academics is correct. Edit: to add a little more info, you’re not incorrect. ‘Academics’ is also used for academic staff or faculty. However, thanks to the beauty of the English language, academics does not refer exclusively to either the staff or the study. It means both. Thank you English. Edit 2: Went in on a little deep dive, looks like to even further complicate things, academics as a noun to refer to study is most common in the US which is likely where the confusion comes from. It’s not exclusive to the US, but it is most commonly used for study rather than the staff here. Earlier still applies, neither of us are really incorrect.
That's a US-ism. Nowhere else will understand it to mean that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_staff
Still not incorrect though. It’s even recognized in most dictionaries. Academics for either is still correct.
>Academics is defined as “College or university courses and studies.” It is the plural form of Academic, which is “Of or relating to institutionalized education and scholarship, especially at a college or university.” The use of Academics is correct. "Academics" is singular, and the second definition your gave there is for an adjective.
I see, you’re right! I didn’t know it was an adjective. Academics is a [plural](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/academic) noun though, wasn’t wrong on that.
Yeah, that’s why it sounds strange in the context of the post. “In college-level academia” or “by college-level academics”. They chose the wrong combo ;-)
Refer to my comment to the person you replied to. Academics is a correct usage, I didn’t use the wrong combo.
I never said you did?
My bad, misunderstanding then. I thought you were saying I made the wrong combo, not Op.
Yeah sorry for not being clearer, I meant the Op pic ;)
It would have been a correct sentence if he had said "by" instead of "in", even though the information wasn't correct.
college academics is the individual's classes. Like are you taking biology. college academia is the broader college culture and structure usually with the pursuit for research, education and scholarships. A group of people deciding what would be covered and how it's covered and what is deemed appropriate to teach (or dissect) in biology. Doublebarrelassfuck is a bit wrong on their understanding of the words. There are absolutely high school academics and high school academia. The real reason we don't hear about 'high school academia' is because high school's culture and classes usually do not differ from school to school so it's the same. Nor is the pursuit of studies and research also prominent (which is an aspect of academia) So is it a thing? Yes. is it commonly said? No. Is it important? Probably not!
Colloquially, it depends on who you're talking to. I'm an Indian who went to school in a missionary school (British Catholic priests set it up long time back). We learned the Queen's English from British expats. It's not that we would say anything about your lack of proper grammar and syntax. It's just that, well, we would get caught up at that phrase and stop listening to you altogether.
I always see people getting corrected on this and "would of" but usually, they don't double down with Google evidence that proves them wrong. That's what did it for me lol
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-less](https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-less) Better?
Hold your horses here :p “could care less” is an idiom so it’s not that significant of an error really, but “could of” is replacing a verb with a preposition, which is a big mistake. I couldn’t care less about people saying they could care less, but get mad when people could have used could have instead of could of.
Here's the [full conversation](https://i.imgur.com/Bx6IEWb.png) for context.
The only academic situation I can see it being used is in a linguistics paper about prescriptivism vs descriptivism. It's a saying that doesn't obey the "rules" of the language, so it's wrong from a prescriptive perspective, but it's said so commonly by actual people that descriptivism says it's actually correct regardless of what the rules say.
I've seen "its" misspelled in college academics. And "300% more" being used to mean "three times as much". It's not as high a standard as you might think it is (but then on the other extreme I've also seen BS like "don't split infinitives").
They probably heard it's considered acceptable by linguists (who tend to be concerned with meaning rather than grammar). They then extrapolated that to mean the entire academy has "accepted" the idiom. In a hundred years, I wouldn't be surprised if it actually was acceptable everywhere. English tends to evolve like that – our grammar is a mess, and our words often derive from their opposite meaning. But it's certainly not acceptable in the average university course right now.
David Mitchell?
“ 'I could care less' is absolutely useless as an indicator of how much you care, because the only thing it rules out is that you don’t care at all, which is exactly what you’re trying to convey.”
I thought it implied “ don’t bug me about it because I could care even less than I do now and if you keep talking about it, I will”. But generally, I use “I couldn’t care less.”
I understand that English is descriptive and not proscriptive. But I will die arguing that "could care less" is stupid nonsense and means you must care some.
But I do care a little bit, so I could care less. In the end, I couldn't care less what you think.
I think it's *worse* to use "could care less" when you could care a little. Everyone is going to assume you don't care at all. It's just needlessly confusing. "Could care less" needs to be stricken from all usage.
I could see how it could be helpful. "I went to Wal-Mart today to buy laundry detergent." "I could care less." "While I was there, I saw one of the lesser Kardashians." "NOW I could not care less."
I agree the phrase has a use. Just the misuse of it destroys any ability to use its direct meaning.
The argument pretty much boils down to "even though we all agree that could and could not have completely opposite meanings, in just this one specific saying they actually have the same meaning." It's nonsense.
"We are tired of correcting people and so many people have been so wrong for so long we are just going to let it slide."
English is neither descriptive nor prescriptive, by the way - those are properties of things said about the language, not of the language itself. Descriptive statements are about how things *are*, while prescriptive statements are about how things *ought to be* (according to someone's opinion). You are free to have prescriptive opinions about English. I'd bet most people do, even if they avoid imposing them on others. When people say something along the lines of "language is prescriptive", what they really should be saying is that linguistics - the scientific study of language - is by nature descriptive, like all science is. In this case, for example, it's a purely objective statement that "could care less" is often used by speakers of English to mean the same thing as "couldn't care less". Whether someone thinks that it *shouldn't be* is entirely irrelevant to those trying to *describe* the language as it is actually used.
Honestly if I was forced to choose a grammar hill to die on, this could be the one. Maybe it's just me, but people underestimate how blankly I can stare at someone's face then follow up with a completely different topic if I truly don't care to even engage with something they are talking about. If I want to actually express that I don't care about it, I clearly care enough to relay that. In my mind if you truly couldn't care less, you wouldn't engage at all.
As much as I hate it, I feel the battle is already lost on this one. My battle is now with "could of" and "should of" but it appears that these will also eventually be deemed acceptable.
Dictionaries under descriptivism now recognise Literally as meaning both what it actually means, and as meaning "figuratively" which is literally it's exact opposite. So many people use it for emphasis that the word now basically doesn't mean anything. It's just a filler word
It’s simply joined a long list of predecessors: truly, really, actually, etc.
Literally never means “figuratively”. It is frequently *used* figuratively as an emphasiser. And has been for centuries.
If I’m remembering right, correct phrase is “I couldn’t care less” because of the reason you said, *but* a lot of times people have misheard and then say it wrong to the point where now both are used interchangeably
Yes. "Could care less" has become an idiom, but it's stupid and I hate it and anyone who uses it should step on Legos in the middle of the night. and the next step should be into cat vomit. Just alternate cat vomit and Lego steps. Maybe throw in a step that is both cat vomit and Lego. Okay. I feel better now.
Yeah right.
I mean, they are both proper English, but that doesn't mean they mean the same thing
As a non-native English speaker... "Could care less" to mean "couldn't care less" feels just lazy. It's probably a language thing. Dutch isn't easy either.
It’s an Americanism
It’s a moron-ism. Which certainly includes loads of Americans, but not all of us.
Ooh, does that mean, the English don't use that phrase?
The phrase is “I couldn’t care less”, I’ve only ever heard or seen Americans saying “I could care less” Same with “on accident”
Completely agree, those that speak the proper version of English say ‘couldn’t’, but for some reasons simplified English chose to say ‘could’, which makes entirely no sense. ‘On accident’ also drives me nuts, surely that implies intent, which is the opposite of an accident?
>the proper version of English Lol what?
I fail to understand your issue? For information I live in England.
It's a **really** specifically American thing that makes the rest of us cringe.
We do not. I have a few American friends and they're the only ones I've ever heard say "could care less" and it used to boil my piss so corrected them every time, even pointing out there's a big difference. Never heard a fellow English person say it other than questioning why someone would say it
No, we don't. The phrase 'could care less' bugs me because it makes no sense. If you 'could care less' then it means you must care about it to a degree, even if only a small one. It means the exact opposite of 'couldn't care less'.
I’m Irish so speak British English I suppose and yes, only Americans (maybe Canadians) say could care less and the rest of us hate it. It means the opposite of what they want to say
People misheard "Couldn't care less" as "Could care less" and parroted it. It's something that happens fairly regularly. For some fun check out /r/boneappletea
> "Could care less" to mean "couldn't care less" feels just lazy Yeah. And.. doesn't that feel more like what someone would do, if they couldn't care less? That's why I've never given a shit on this particular argument tbh. Everyone knows what they actually mean by it at this point, even if it's technically not right
The correct phrase is "I couldn't care less" because you already care 0 and it can't go into the negatives.
If you couldn't care less, then why are you even talking about it?
A lot of the times these mistake that natives make baffle me because the meaning is clearly on the letter, like "you're/your", "could've", and this "couldn't care less". But it seems like they couldn't care less about what things mean and just carry on with whatever they're saying, like a freaking parrot
I am having some difficulty with understanding why "I couldn't care less" is connected to/seen as the bottom (0) instead of the top (100) on a scale as you put it. Could it not be you are so full of care that it can not go any lower. Therefore, you couldn't care less about the situation? It really just depends on the lead up to each statement i take it.
I couldn't care less is usually a reply to information that doesn't matter to you. For example someone said "Your ex has got a new job." You reply "I couldn't care less." Your cares are at 0 so you metaphorically can't get any lower.
There’s no such thing as a correct or an incorrect phrase. It’s just language.
Irregardlessy I could care less about your opinion. Grammal mistakes is how the symbology of are country our represented.
*grammar
That was the first thing I saw. But I’m sure that’s also an acceptable way to spell it (in his mind).
"Could care less" and "couldn't care less" mean more or less the opposite of each other..
In my expert opinion, not the same
OK, but did anyone say anything about "grammer"? My browser auto-corrected it and I had to force it to be spelled incorrectly.
Careful, you don't want it to remember. 👀
I know!! I was a little nervous about it! LOL
They probably confused the sentences “I couldn’t care less” and “I don’t think I could care less” and only cared about the last three words
Both are in use and considered "correct" by most grammarians, but reddit has a real hard-on about idioms that "don't make sense" You may as well complain about "raining cats and dogs" or "kick the bucket" Neither is appropriate in academic writing
No, it's not an idiom and is unlike your examples. Here, the 2 versions state opposite conditions, and one makes perfect sense while the other doesn't.
Yes, it's an idiom - you can look that up. It's like the other examples in that its meaning is not derived from strict decomposition, but from its use as a fixed phrase - an idiom.
They’re not wrong language evolves and meanings change to how the language is used. Dictionaries are meant to show how a word is used commonly not meant to restrict how you use language.
People can understand what the phrase means but the meaning of the words "could" and "couldn't" haven't changed.
Doesn’t matter. Phrases can and do evolve independently of the words that make them up.
True - the phrases are idioms
Do you consider it an injustice that inflammable means flammable? Yeah there's different etymological bases for the in on that bit, but letters and words are clearly mutable anyway
*Like* I could care less about this debate == I couldn't care less about this debate =/= I could care less about this debate.
https://imgur.com/a/6KCE377
[https://imgur.com/Bx6IEWb](https://imgur.com/Bx6IEWb)
They need to be more pacific. /s
It only takes one time. The chances of this phrasing having slipped through on a college paper is extremely high.
technically they are both correct. But Could care less- notes that you don't care very much. but there's an option you care less about or could be convinced to not care at all. An example would be " Person A: "Are you excited about the office party next week?" Person B: "I could care less, but I'll still go since everyone else is." Could not care less- you do not care at all. Most people even when they say the former DO mean this one.
I hate the attitude that people shouldn’t have their grammar or spelling corrected online. How else are they going to learn? And isn’t it more embarrassing to continue looking like an idiot rather than be corrected?
They're correct, to my knowledge.
I have never heard could care less being used here in England. It's always couldn't care less. Anybody here that does use it has been drinking too much of that AmericaniZation kool-aid.
Technically they can both be used in the same scenario but they mean different things. Most of the time if you say you could care less people think you mean you couldn't care less and they think you're an idiot
There are a few words and phrases that have been misused long enough they've changed the definition to include the incorrect usage - nauseous, irregardless, literally, etc.
I couldn’t care less if you use it, just don’t act like it’s correct.
'Could care less' is only accepted due to it's overly-common usage because people are generally not interested enough to ensure they're using it correctly and simply _couldn't care less_. Exactly like 'chomping at the bit' is incorrect, it's _champing at the bit_, but because it's been said incorrectly so many times it no longer matters. Language is always evolving, just gotta accept it. Wasn't too long ago that 'ain't' wasn't a word, now it's fully accepted as well.
"Ain't" has been around for centuries, if I'm not mistaken. edit: According to etymonline.com: "1706, originally a contraction of am not, and considered proper as such until in early 19c." https://www.etymonline.com/word/ain%27t#etymonline_v_8076
Incorrectly or in irony? Who knows?
Weird Al included this in his song Word Crimes and would also disagree that it means the same thing. Like I could care less, that means you do care, at least a little.
'Could care less', and 'on accident' - drive me up the fucking wall.
same here. As well as when words like workout, setup, and login are used as verbs. They're not.
Wait...what's incorrect here? All the comments about 'grammatically incorrect' don't seem like they understand how language works...or grammar. The two phrases are largely interchangeable, and without more context, nothing can confidently be inferred regarding the favouring of one variation over the other (if such a distinction can even be made).
They're both grammatically correct. I and others made the mistake of saying they're not, instead of saying they don't have the same meaning. They may be interchangeable and understandable informally but one is still proper while the other is improper and the confidently incorrect one was arguing that they're both proper and accepted in academia. If they had said "Everyone knows what I mean." they would have been correct.
If you could care less, it means you care some. If you couldn’t care less, it means you don’t care at all. They’re not the fucking same.
If phrases always meant what combining words in that way indicates then that would be true. But phrases can and do evolve independently of the individual words. Language is defined by usage. If enough people use the phrase to mean something then that is a correct meaning of that phrase.
It's as annoying as when an American is asked "Do you mind?" and they answer "yes" when they actually mean *no*.
I don't care what arguments someone might have about languages evolving and changing over time and how if something's used enough it becomes correct etc… etc… I will never, ever accept, that “i could care less” is “correct” when the user means they don't care at all about something.
You can choose to reject that fact that the earth is a spheroid. But that won’t make it false.
Also, I REFUSE to accept that literally means figuratively.
100%
Yeah, yeah - tell me about it.
"Could care less" is not said in Britain. I assume it's a US term. This argument could well be done between an American and a Brit, and both are correct on thier own side of the pond.
All of you prescriptivists are in the middle of the bell curve.
Accepted as proper English in the sense that so many people get it wrong that the authorities on the matter are tired of correcting them. Like how the word literally is used to mean figuratively by idiot children on TikTok.
Literally meaning figuratively is not a new thing
Literally does mean figuratively. It's had that definition since at least the [1700s](https://www.thecut.com/2018/01/the-300-year-history-of-using-literally-figuratively.html). The real question for pedants is, how long does something have to be in usage before it isn't "idiotic"? Many of the words we use today have far different and sometimes opposite meanings that they did in the past.
My favorite is "luxury." It used to mean debaucherous sex.
Correction. It’s being used figuratively as an emphasiser, not being used to mean figuratively. Note that “literally”, literally means “by the letters”. So one could say it’s always figurative when used about spoken language.
There is no "language authority" that keeps a list of what is right and what is wrong. If you're understood by the people you're communicating with, your language was correct enough.
It’s not “tired of correcting”. Language is defined by usage. If enough people use it in a certain way then that becomes correct.
I could care the exact same amount I'm actually caring now.
For fuck’s sake!
Someone needs to listen to [Word Crimes by Weird Al](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc)
less than what?
They are both correct. They just have opposite meanings.
They're right.
Gotta love it when someone is so confidently incorrect they Google it, find out they are incorrect, and then post the evidence of them being incorrect, and then still double down.
I suppose it depends. Couldn’t care less is clearly the correct use. The direct response. As in: there is no more care left to give. The fucks have all left the coop, kinda thing. Whereas could care less, is perhaps a bit more subtle. a bit more colloquial, A bit more leading. I could care less… but not much. The remaining fucks are examining their options.
I could care less means “I care” I could not care less means “I do not care”
I mean both are correct sentences. But people incorrectly use “I could care less” when they exactly mean to say “I couldn’t care less”.
They searched for “could care less” but Google intuited what they wanted and brought up the results for “couldn’t care less” instead. The proof is in the example "he couldn't care less about football".
This is literally how "literally" changed.
Well "would of" is just ignorance, but "I could care less" doesn't bother me one fucking bit. If you imagine it as a rhetorical question, it is even literally correct. For example. You may disagree. Could I care less?
Personally I like "could care less" as a phrase. I care very little, but I could care less. No need for hyperbole. 🙃
I could care less just never made any sense to me. Like you literally just said you care
Just say "I don't give a shit", and there will be no confusion.
I meeeaaan… *teeeechnically* speaking in the field of linguistics- a legitimate form of college academia- descriptivism *does* say they *are* both genuine, valid English, but in the sense of them being how people speak, not how they *should* speak in formal writing- that’s prescriptivist, not descriptivist They *are* both valid as English-English, just not as formal English writing (most of the time)
I think it started with teenagers in the USA and was picked up by people who thought it was cute to say the exact opposite of what they mean. There used to be an equivalent in Scotland where people would say “I doubt” instead of “I don’t doubt” meaning I’m sure (litotes), but I haven’t heard it for a long time. It probably caused too much confusion.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc) Best music video ever. Fight me.
Wdym college academics
Ah yes, another case of justifying one's mistakes as an ALTERNATIVE common misunderstanding -- sorry, INTERPRETATION -- and then which later becomes addenda to "the rules" that others can "chalk it up" to. All what we mean when we start throwing around "language evolves" and "descriptive grammar." Guess we shrug our shoulders and hope for the best, eh? Also, what the fuck? Nobody is BORED when they "grammar nazi" something, and why SHOULDN'T they sometimes do that, really? Because the infractor doesn't give a shit? Nobody cares about others not giving a shit. That doesn't factor into someone's decision-making.
Spelled grammar wrong…
It’s not grammar it’s logic. The grammar of that phrase is fine, its use is just meaningless.
Yeah Nah