Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanthe
Actually, the phrase "I could care less" meaning "I couldn't care less" is common usage in my neck of the woods. It might not be proper English but it's a common figure of speech.  |
"I could care less" is no less proper than "I couldn't care less" and is about as old. Both mean "I don't care."
Linguists use the term "etymological fallacy" to describe the mistaken belief that the "true" meaning of a word or expression can be determined by examining its roots. This is simply not true. Something "awful" doesn't fill you with awe; nor does "silly" mean "blessed" anymore. And of course "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing.
Logic only has a limited applicability to language anyway. Double negatives are not proper in English anymore, but not negating a negative makes it a positive (i.e., because "I don't need nothing" logically means "I need something.") Double negatives were completely cromulent in Shakespeare's time, for example, and are common in other languages as well. Formal logic like this just plays no real role in language usage - early modern English speakers (or present-day Russian speakers) are no less logical than we are.
The prohibition against double negatives in modern english is simply an arbitrary rule, like most language rules (I mean, why add an -s or -es to 3d person singular verbs anyway...)