Good grammar can get you a date!

[Prestidigitweeze]

As a child, I used to correct people's grammar constantly. Then one day, my father whispered that I'd just humiliated one of his most earnest workers. I never forgot that—seeing a grown man's despondent expression and realizing it had been put there by a thoughtless little boy.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

This one, you mean?


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



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

This from the nation that drops Rs, syllables, and adds Rs to the end words that don't have them at the end?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So ... are you going to take a stand on valuable versus invaluable?

Many people assume they mean the same thing but there is a subtle difference. Valuable infers a high price can be placed on something, such a valuable jewel is one that costs a lot but can be purchased by someone who has enough money to pay for it. Invaluable infers something is so valuable, it can't be replaced or purchased at any price.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I could care less and I couldn't care less mean the same thing. That's just the way it is.

I must be quixotic. I am now feeling an urge to take up arms against the tyranny of the majority.

For me, language is a tension between propriety, popularity, and personal whim. I am usually operating in the first two spheres. When the latter arises, however, it always trumps.

I would tend to use "I could care less" to mean nothing more than an unspecified level that is higher than zero.

Secondarily, it would mean that my level of caring is pretty low. Caring less, while possible, would take more effort than I'm probably going to expend.

While the "I could care less" army is engaging the "I couldn't care less" army, the "Whatever!" army is waiting to ambush the survivors.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

I must be quixotic. I am now feeling an urge to take up arms against the tyranny of the majority.

For me, language is a tension between propriety, popularity, and personal whim. I am usually operating in the first two spheres. When the latter arises, however, it always trumps.

I would tend to use "I could care less" to mean nothing more than an unspecified level that is higher than zero.

Secondarily, it would mean that my level of caring is pretty low. Caring less, while possible, would take more effort than I'm probably going to expend.

While the "I could care less" army is engaging the "I couldn't care less" army, the "Whatever!" army is waiting to ambush the survivors.

Whatever.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Edit: Ah. Fewer is for multiple items, and less is for single items.

Not quite. Fewer is for discrete items, e.g. bars of chocolate. Less is for continuous items, e.g. chocolate.

"I need to eat fewer bars of chocolate" or "I need to eat less chocolate".


But it's not really important. It just doesn't sound right (to me) when the wrong one is used.

The most interesting bit is that there are not two words when the comparison is to something bigger. More is used in both cases.

"I want to eat more bars of chocolate" and "I want to eat more chocolate".

[pdurrant]

flammable and inflammable have always amused me.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

flammable and inflammable have always amused me.

Indeed (which doesn't mean not a deed).

BTW: Why is the word inflammable not inflamable (or, more precisely, enflamable)?

The substitution of in for en could be one of the reasons for the inconsistencies in prefix usage which so many have noted.

One could also argue that the evolution of language is more like rotting than maturing. In which case there might be a point at which a restart is necessary (perhaps through a new civilization after some sweeping disaster).

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

One could also argue that the evolution of language is more like rotting than maturing. In which case there might be a point at which a restart is necessary (perhaps through a new civilization after some sweeping disaster).

I like this idea:

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only bent upon splitting infinitives, dangling participles, and using double negatives and "could care less" instead of "couldn't care less" continually.
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for I could care less what shall happen with them.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Many people assume they mean the same thing but there is a subtle difference. Valuable infers a high price can be placed on something, such a valuable jewel is one that costs a lot but can be purchased by someone who has enough money to pay for it. Invaluable infers something is so valuable, it can't be replaced or purchased at any price.

The example was used to show that they are not antonyms, as the prefix in- generally indicates.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Not quite. Fewer is for discrete items, e.g. bars of chocolate. Less is for continuous items, e.g. chocolate.

And we can presumably all agree that one should never say I could/couldn't care fewer.

[pynch]

Originally Posted by Catlady

And we can presumably all agree that one should never say I could/couldn't care fewer.

Of course we agree.

I hope we also agree that more chocolate is always better than less chocolate.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Catlady

And we can presumably all agree that one should never say I could/couldn't care fewer.

Since caring doesn't seem to be quantised, fewer is definitely wrong.

inflammable's in- isn't the same as the in- of , say, invisible, but like the in- of indoctrinate.

flammable is the recently (1920s) introduced word to mean the same thing, as it's hard to misinterpret flammable, which it's possible to be mistaken about inflammable.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

inflammable's in- isn't the same as the in- of , say, invisible, but like the in- of indoctrinate.

flammable is the recently (1920s) introduced word to mean the same thing, as it's hard to misinterpret flammable, which it's possible to be mistaken about inflammable.

1. Agreed (there are, I believe, four meanings for the prefix in and only one is antonymic).

2. It sounds as if you might be responding to this bit, though I'm not certain I communicated the fact that I was joking:

Originally Posted by prestidigitweeze

BTW: Why is the word inflammable not inflamable (or, more precisely, enflamable)?

[Quexos]

There is a form of harmony in language that is kin to mathematics and I am sorry that you don't see it.
And this is not a crusade against a specific expression or idiom (even though this one is as wrong as it will ever get). This is a crusade against a blatant misuse of syntax in a language which to a greater extent is a struggle against ignorance and I don't understand how (as a book lover) you cannot appreciate that. But feel free to condone it if you want. I will never agree to it and the rift between well written or spoken English by some and incorrect English by others will only get worse.

It makes me wonder, what are schools doing about it, why aren't they making sure kids have a good knowledge of something as fundamental as the language they will use all their lives to communicate and interact with others.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Language is not mathematics. The analogy doesn't work, if you said "1+1=3", no one would understand what you meant. On the other hand, they would understand if you said "I could care less" and meant it to be synonymous "I couldn't care less."

Again, I don't use "I could care less", I'm just not joining a crusade against it. I don't need to condone anything.



An idiom is "A group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words". Clearly, that's what "I could care less" is. If you said "I could care less" and meant that you were capable of having less concern than you have now, it would only cause people do be confused.