You American's *could* care less but in Britain we couldn't. Why? (1 Viewer)

[TheoGB]

It really bugs me that whereas over here we'd say "I couldn't care less about...", in the U.S. you say "I could care less..." - well I want to know how much less you could care?
Seriously, though, that particular transatlantic change seems to take the whole meaning of the phrase away. Anyone know how it came about to change in that way?
Cheers

 

[BrianB]

It's just lazy grammer, perpetuated by people who couldn't care less whether they get it right or not. "I could care less" is just wrong, it's meaning is completely opposite of what the person saying it intends.

It annoys me something awful.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

It might be a shortened version of "As if I could care less".

But wherever it came from, it's still the opposite of what is being meant.

 

[cafink]

It's just lazy grammer, perpetuated by people who couldn't care less whether they get it right or not. "I could care less" is just wrong, it's meaning is completely opposite of what the person saying it intends.

There is no "e" in "grammar," and you shouldn't have an apostrophe in "its."

Just FYI.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Theo,

It's actually said both ways over here-- but I'll readily admit "I could care less" is wrong, and has bugged me for years.

-Vince

 

[BrianB]

I knew the grammer police would pick up on those mistakes.

 

[David Judah]

and you shouldn't have an apostrophe in "its."

That is actually correct. It's a contraction for "it is."

DJ

 

[Kevin P]

That is actually correct. It's a contraction for "it is."

Actually, there shouldn't be an apostrophe in this case. "its" in the possessive form has no apostrophe; "its meaning is....". If it was a contraction, you would wind up with "it is meaning is...."
The contraction of "it is" does have an apostrophe; "it's raining outside."
Here's an example of both forms in one sentence:
"It's correct that its apostrophe is omitted."
KJP

 

[BrettB]

It's just lazy grammer,

IOW, It is just lazy grammar,
Am I missing something
Don't get me wrong, I really could care less.
Edit: Wrong "it's", damn I'm dumb :b

 

[David Judah]

I was referring to "It's just lazy grammer," but I now see Carl was referring to "it's meaning is completely opposite..."
Nevermind
DJ

 

[Rob Willey]

Why are you people channeling the spirit of Jack Briggs?
Rob

 

[Rain]

Well, I live in Canada and I couldn't care less either.

 

[Larry Eshleman]

Something I don't get is the group of variations on the saying, "Take it with a grain of salt".
Am I correct in believing the original saying means the matter in question is so trivial, so tiny, that it is akin to a single grain of salt? If so, why do people say that something is so unimportant that you should "take it with a whole shaker of salt", for example? This would actually seem to increase the importance of it by increasing the corresponding quantity of salt.
(Sorry for rambling off the topic; the original question just made me wonder about this.)

 

[StephenA]

This reminds me of people who say drowneded. That pisses me off too. Most of my family says it, along wih alot of people I knew in school and elsewhere. I've always said drowned, and my mom and cousin used to say I said it wrong.

 

[cafink]

Am I correct in believing the original saying means the matter in question is so trivial, so tiny, that it is akin to a single grain of salt? If so, why do people say that something is so unimportant that you should "take it with a whole shaker of salt", for example? This would actually seem to increase the importance of it by increasing the corresponding quantity of salt.

Actually, the saying "take it with a grain of salt" means to be skeptical of something. Salt makes food a little easier to swallow.

If something is to be taken with a whole lot of salt, then it is obviously very "hard to swallow"! The exaggerated expression is used to indicate that one should be VERY skeptical of something!

 

[Drew Bethel]

C'mon now guys...no need to get all wobbly and stroppy about this

 

[Eve T]

I always heard it here as "I could care less" and have always thought that simply meant, well, I could care less than you, or I could care less than her, etc. Or..I could care a whole lot less about this that I am actually caring about it.
So some people couldn't possibly care less than they do, while others could care a lot less....am I making sense?
Anwayz, I've heard it both ways and always knew what the person was saying and it's never bothered me either way.

 

[Larry Eshleman]

Thanks, Carl! I'd never considered that interpretation before.

 

[Bill Cowmeadow]

It's not that I couldn't care less, I just don't give a shit!

 

[Rex Bachmann]

StephenA wrote:


Quote:



This reminds me of people who say drowneded. ... Most of my family says it, along wih alot of people I knew in school and elsewhere. I've always said drowned, and my mom and cousin used to say I said it wrong.






Do your family and neighbors also say to drowned or "so-and-so is 'drown(e)ding' "? If so, what's happened here is that such speakers have replaced the regular present tense of drown in their grammar with the past tense form drowned (as if it were the base of the word). Once the base has been re-analyzed to drowned (where the -e- is silent (as if spelled drownd), then it rhymes with such verbs (some also nouns) as (a)bound, found, ground, pound, round, sound, which have past tenses in -ed (where the -e- isn't silent; so (a)bounded, founded, grounded, pounded, rounded, sounded. These speakers seem to feel the need to make the rhyming present drownd "sound" past tense by adding the -ed making it just like the other sound-alike verbs: found is to founded, ground is to grounded, and so on, as drownd is to X. X = "drownded". (It's called re-analysis by analogy.)