Queso Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 We've all heard humans blurt "I could care less!":grumpy: Well, they're all wrong. Truth is, They could NOT care less. Think about it. A topic comes along that you don't care about, at all,and you don't want to talk about it so you state that you Don't care, and you could not care any less. Saying you could care less about something just doesn't really make sense. It surprises me at how vastly wrong everyone is. I've only seen it writ right a couple of times in a couple of books . . Zythryn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 It surprises me at how vastly wrong everyone is.Actually, I think "everyone" (ya really didn't mean *everyone* Orby, because that would include you! :hihi: ) in unintentional irony is right when they mangle that idiom... The proof is not in the pudding; its tapioca that's in the pudding,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted February 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Yes, so very true, Buffy. My everyone is not your everyone, nor is it my everyone anymore. Let's pretend I said... "It doesn't surprise me at how vastly wrong Most people are" [regarding how they could and couldn't care less, and not understanding the polar difference] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 The proof is not in the pudding; its tapioca that's in the pudding,BuffyYesssssss, but can you prove it's tapioca?:hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted February 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 1. I had to voice my observation. 2. It doesn't matter. People still get their points accrossed. One person says it, the other person knows what they mean, even if it's not right. Silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Yesssssss, but can you prove it's tapioca?:DOf course! Got an electron microscope? Rice pudding, with *lots* of raisins, :hihi:Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted February 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Honestly.... I couldn't care less about your little chit chat. :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric l Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 This may be a little off topic, but I couldn't care less. An electron microscope will not help you to define which starch is present in the pudding, because there it will be completely gelatinized (no starch in granular form left)To distinct the types of starch granules, an optical microscope will be sufficient.Tapioca (the starch from manioc) gives a clear gel with a long structure (comparable to potoato starch). In pudding you would want a short structure, and you would use ricestarch, wheatstarch or corn starch. To Boerseun, this would give "milliespap".As for the misconception in "I could care less", I notice simmilar things are frequent in any language - or to be more precise in all languages I am familiar with. I'll hunt for some examples and be back to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted February 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 As will I . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 I could care less because: The degree to which I now care is nearly equal to zero. To reach that illustrous mile stone zero, I'll expend a touch more effort and Care less..............................Infy Turtle 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric l Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 One thing you can find in many languages is the double negation. e.g. in Dutch I often hear and read things like "onmeedogenloos" wich would translate in English roughly as "unrelentless". Another thing is the double plural, mostly in words of foreign origin. e.g. the big scrimps are know as "scampi", which in Italian is a plural. The word is used in Dutch, but people tend to forget that it is actually a plural, and ask for "a dozen scampis". I have no examples at hand for other languages, but I know there must be lots of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 One thing you can find in many languages is the double negation. e.g. in Dutch I often hear and read things like "onmeedogenloos" wich would translate in English roughly as "unrelentless"Along these lines, many will say, "we don't have nothing" to imply that they are poor or lacking in some key materialistic item. However, when you break it down, it means they have something. Really, it's just an illustration of how the rules of language do not necessarily dictate how it's used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric l Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Or how about "unregardless" - I'm not sure whether it was on this forum I read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Or how about "unregardless" - I'm not sure whether it was on this forum I read it. I hear "irregardless" a lot. :hihi: Per the original subject, "I could care less," my sense is that it began correctly, but people got lazy and term evolved. Proper: I could not care less.Conjucted: I couldn't care less.Evolved: I could care less. :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 In the UK it's always "couldn't". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted February 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 In the UK it's always "couldn't". :shrug: O America!:hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 A visiting professor from the UK was at Harvard, giving a talk on the evolution of proper English. He castigated those ignorant buffoons who used double negatives, saying, "it makes no sense to use a double negative, for it is neither MORE negative, nor is it positive -- any more than a double positive could ever be negative." Into the following silence, an American student in the back row spoke up just loud enough to be heard throughout the room: "Yeah. Right." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.