Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

"Could vs Couldn't care less" question...

F

Flareon

New Member
This isn't like the there/their/they're thread. I just want to know why some people say "I could care less" when others say "I couldn't care less" when they both mean to say that they do not care.

"I couldn't care less" would imply that I am unable to care any less than I do right now. I am at care level zero.

"I could care less" would imply that I care to some degree, but could care less if I wanted to or needed to.

I always use "couldn't". Can anyone let me in on why someone would say "could" instead? I have noticed it a lot in speech and just figured it was a common mistake, but I see it written quite often and it is even in a song by My Chemical Romance:

"they said all teenagers scare the living ---- out of me
they could care less as long as someone'll bleed
so darken your clothes
or strike a violent pose
maybe they'll leave you alone
but not me!"

Maybe MCR was poking fun at this? I dno. Anyone have any ideas? Or, anyone that says "could", could you let me know why?

lol.
 
Same reason why people say ax instead of ask and pacifically instead of specifically.

They could care less about the way they talk.
 
Especially from my standpoint as a writer, I lament the decline of the English language at the hands of its native speakers.
 
I hate people who say could. What's the point in saying it?

Oh, I don't care about that, but I still care about it a little bit.

It's so annoying.
 
I say couldn't but I have heard people say could. It really confused me... English is a choppy language, so I guess people are just in the habit of cutting of those last three characters of the word.
 
This exact topic was mentioned on the radio on The Dennis Miller Show yesterday. He did not have an explanation at least not during the time that I listened to the show.

Flareon said:
"I couldn't care less" would imply that I am unable to care any less than I do right now. I am at care level zero.

"I could care less" would imply that I care to some degree, but could care less if I wanted to or needed to.
Click to expand...

I think that the problem (if you wish to call it that) is answered by Flareon -> really they are both correct grammatically. It all depends on exactly what the speaker wants to convey and how they say it. I think using 'could' with a very sarcastic tone adds 'so do not tell me more or I WILL care less.' Basically a 'shut up.'
 
Other variants: "could care a less", "couldn't care or less", "could care of less", "could care if less".
The "not was dropped, apparently, in the US during the 60s.
This may have developed from the 1940s British phrase: "cares so little that he couldn't possibly care less".
 
Heatherdu said:
I think using 'could' with a very sarcastic tone adds 'so do not tell me more or I WILL care less.' Basically a 'shut up.'
Click to expand...
Ha, that's probably the best excuse for it I've heard... well, it's also the only one I've heard. So long as the person uses it "could" correctly, I guess it is permissible?
 
Oh, it is permissible, with or without the sarcasm. It's a colloquial expression that some who prefer the unchanged version dislike, even though such expressions abound in the language where the original meaning is lost or inverted in some way, but no longer questioned as it's become so entrenched in everyday use. It's more a question of taste, since we don't legislate the English language like some other languages.
 
It's definitely more of a US (maybe N America? I don't know) thing than in the UK, where most people say 'couldn't'. It also bugs me when people say 'could', though as Zegnarfol says, if it is now in common usage, it kinda has to be accepted into the language.

I don't know about the US, but spoken English is changing at an alarmingly fast rate in the UK, with the meshing together of different cultures really giving spoken English in London a cosmopolitan quality no other language has. I'm all for upholding the Queen's English, but given all of the cultures I've now had a chance to intermingle with, a little degeneration in everyday speech is a minor price to pay.

This is not the same as Marrill's comment earlier. I completely agree that however people may speak amongst themselves, they should have the ability to speak the Queen's English.
 
If I really wanted to, I could even speak in Middle English, but not many people would understand something like this in this day and age:

"And it is don, aftirward Jesus made iourne bi cites & castelis prechende & euangelisende þe rewme of god, & twelue wiþ hym & summe wymmen þat weren helid of wicke spiritis & sicnesses, marie þat is clepid maudeleyn, of whom seuene deuelis wenten out & Jone þe wif off chusi procuratour of eroude, & Susanne & manye oþere þat mynystreden to hym of her facultes."

Even worse is Old English. Imagine if I started talking like this to a complete stranger:

"Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum, þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon, hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon. Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum..."

My point? Eventually, the English everyone here is using (American English and the Queen's English both) will be just as silly-looking and antiquated to the English speakers of the day as those do to us.
 
My friend told me he read about an article that said mathematicians came up with a formula that could predict the evolution of languages. He said that the past form for walk used to be welk, but that has changed to walked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top