Good grammar can get you a date!

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by Quexos

What do you guys make of this line:
The epic battle between Apple and Google is ALL BUT over. Who won ?

It means that the fat lady has laryngitis.

[desertblues]

Well.....I won't get any dates then.

Language is a living thing for me and can be fun, emotional and all that. It is instrumental in finding my way on my far away journeys, or laughing with the people as I intermix some Dutch words with English, some gestures and the few of their words I have picked up.

I speak 5 languages but am afraid I blunder on the grammar very often. I just ramble along as using a grammar-book or dictionary cramps my style, or so I think. And I tend to like, contribute even, to the confusion that arises from it.

I have a great love for languages and can enjoy seeing a well constructed sentence, thoughtful chosen words, writing poetry or unraveling a poem of others.

[doubleshuffle]

You lier. You did'nt making no mystaiks in hole post. You fishy four complements?

[desertblues]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

You lier. You did'nt making no mystaiks in hole post. You fishy four complements?

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Yet it seems the people who dislike "could care less" are fighting a losing battle. Here's a statistic about the ratio of "could" vs. "couldn't" in the NYT:

----------"couldn't care less"--"could care less"
ratio
1960-1969 ------- 245 ---------- 5 --------- 2.04%
1970-1979 ------- 369 --------- 42 ------- 11.38%
1980-1989 ------- 274 --------- 77 ------- 28.10%
1990-1999 ------- 248 -------- 147 ------- 59.27%
2000-2009 ------- 259 -------- 194 ------- 74.90%

The whole article here.

That's a misleading way to present the comparison, better would be:

----------"couldn't care less"--"could care less" -- "% of total"

1960-1969 ------- 245 ---------- 5 --------- 2..00%
1970-1979 ------- 369 --------- 42 ------- 10.22%
1980-1989 ------- 274 --------- 77 ------- 21.94%
1990-1999 ------- 248 -------- 147 ------- 37.22%
2000-2009 ------- 259 -------- 194 ------- 42.83%

[pdurrant]

Google's Ngrams viewer is interesting.


(Google "Replaced I couldn't care less with I could not care less to match how we processed the books")

[pynch]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Google's Ngrams viewer is interesting.


(Google "Replaced I couldn't care less with I could not care less to match how we processed the books")

Very interesting, indeed ... especially if you compare it with the graph for British English where the numbers for “I could care less” are much lower.

So, who wants to burn his fingers trying to interpret the difference?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by pynch

Very interesting, indeed ... especially if you compare it with the graph for British English where the numbers for “I could care less” are much lower.

This one, you mean?


(BTW, the vertical scale is the same in the two graphs. The top line is 0.000011%)

Originally Posted by pynch

So, who wants to burn his fingers trying to interpret the difference?

Well, clearly the British are much better at grammar (& logic) than the Americans.

[pynch]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Well, clearly the British are much better at grammar (& logic) than the Americans.

Or are they just slow in their attempt to imitate Americans?

[QuantumIguana]

Language and logic have only a passing acquaintance. "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less" mean the same thing, even if we think they ought to mean the opposite. If someone used "I could care less" to mean that they had some quantity of caring, but they could in fact care at a lower level, that would be logically correct, but would only lead to confusion. People aren't confused by "I could care less", they understand that it means the same thing as "I couldn't care less".

I don't use "I could care less", but it communicates just as effectively.

[Quexos]

I don't think that this degeneracy of the English language should be allowed. The problem here is how the wrong expression came to be, only because those using it do not realize that they were using it wrongly. This is not some cultural evolution, this is just a plain wrong use of the language and if mistakes like this are allowed then the rules and syntax that make a language have no reason to be anymore and we might as well
"right wordz and ixpresionz witchever way we wants if there is no rulez and liturater wiz it's good uzes of language will hav no special meanning becose thos that cant use proper words or ixpresionz hav they're wrong wayz becoming write and mainstrim uses"
I for one do not wish to see that happen even if it can be argued that it's already happening.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Language and logic have only a passing acquaintance. "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less" mean the same thing, even if we think they ought to mean the opposite. If someone used "I could care less" to mean that they had some quantity of caring, but they could in fact care at a lower level, that would be logically correct, but would only lead to confusion. People aren't confused by "I could care less", they understand that it means the same thing as "I couldn't care less".

I don't use "I could care less", but it communicates just as effectively.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Quexos

I don't think that this degeneracy of the English language should be allowed. The problem here is how the wrong expression came to be, only because those using it do not realize that they were using it wrongly. This is not some cultural evolution, this is just a plain wrong use of the language and if mistakes like this are allowed then the rules and syntax that make a language have no reason to be anymore and we might as well
"right wordz and ixpresionz witchever way we wants if there is no rulez and liturater wiz it's good uzes of language will hav no special meanning becose thos that cant use proper words or ixpresionz hav they're wrong wayz becoming write and mainstrim uses"
I for one do not wish to see that happen even if it can be argued that it's already happening.

It doesn't matter whether or not you "allow" it, there's nothing anyone can do about it. There's no "degeneration" in language, changes taking place today are every bit as much cultural changes as every other change in language. The reason we aren't speaking Indo-European today is because of these kind of "errors". Language has rules, but they are discovered rather than imposed. Dante did not write in a degenerate form of Latin. Changes that fail to communicate information will be abandoned.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Language and logic have only a passing acquaintance. "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less" mean the same thing, even if we think they ought to mean the opposite. If someone used "I could care less" to mean that they had some quantity of caring, but they could in fact care at a lower level, that would be logically correct, but would only lead to confusion. People aren't confused by "I could care less", they understand that it means the same thing as "I couldn't care less".

I don't use "I could care less", but it communicates just as effectively.

It only communicates as effectively because most people know what you mean.

"Are you able to pay less taxes?"

- "I could pay less taxes" (if I would fill out the form correctly)
- "I couldn't pay less taxes" (because I already pay none)

It's a big difference. If expressions fall out of use or spelling changes, all fine by me. However, the expressions above are not interchangeable because one is affirmative, the other is not.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

It only communicates as effectively because most people know what you mean.

That's how languages work.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

It only communicates as effectively because most people know what you mean.

Which is kind of like the way language works anyway, isn't it?

EDIT: The Iguana beat me to it. Must be that quantum thang...