# I couldn't care less vs. I could care less



## chesty

I get the impression that this is a bit of a thorny topic in these purlieus; and perhaps even a hoary old chestnut, nevertheless, the forum search tool didn't come up with much...so



For those of you who are confused by this (and it is a little confusing), despite all appearances, both forms mean the same thing; that is they are both used (as far as I am aware), to express dismissive indifference.



 Is it a straightforward split between BE and AE?


 BE: "I couldn't care less" 

 AE: "I could care less"


 Is the use of "I could care less" disputed among speakers of AE?

 I don't think that the use of "I couldn't care less" is disputed among BE speakers, though I may be wrong.


 To my mind at least there is a limiting logic to "I couldn't care less" (which I take to be the BE version). It denies the existence of a level of caring inferior to my own - pretty strong stuff!


 Maybe I'm stuck in a rut, but I cannot seem to wring any similarly compelling internal logic from "I could care less"; is there anyone out there who can?


 Apologies in advance if this topic has already been done to death.


----------



## Sallyb36

In the Uk we say I couldn't care less, we would never say I could care less.


----------



## jess oh seven

well, despite its frequency of use "I could care less" really makes no sense


----------



## kaleidoscope

Maybe I'm just weird, but I've always said "I couldn't care *or* less".

"I could care less" doesn't have the same meaning to me.


----------



## chesty

Is it safe to say that AE speakers could care less?


----------



## JamesM

chesty said:


> Is it safe to say that AE speakers could care less?


 
No, I think the majority of people say, "I couldn't care less", although I've heard people say, "I could care less." The second one never made any sense to me, particularly given the circumstances in which it's used.

Personally, it strikes me a little like "heart-rendering" when people mean "heart-rending."   I understand what they're saying, but the mental image brought up by the words throws me a little.


----------



## chesty

JamesM said:


> No, I think the majority of people say, "I couldn't care less", although I've heard people say, "I could care less." The second one never made any sense to me, particularly given the circumstances in which it's used.
> 
> Personally, it strikes me a little like "heart-rendering" when people mean "heart-rending."   I understand what they're saying, but the mental image brought up by the words throws me a little.




I see. Any ideas as to how it came about?


----------



## panjandrum

In defense of the AE-speakers (though why I can't imagine) I always assumed their eccentric usage to derive from something like 
"(I don't think it is possible that) I could care less."
or
"(In your wildest dreams don't imagine that) I could care less."

(Kaleidoscope:  I think you must be just weird - I've never come across anything like that )


----------



## chesty

panjandrum said:


> "(I don't think it is possible that) I could care less."
> or
> "(In your wildest dreams don't imagine that) I could care less."



Very interesting Mr. Bond.


----------



## Old Novice

panjandrum said:


> In defense of the AE-speakers (though why I can't imagine) I always assumed their eccentric usage to derive from something like
> "(I don't think it is possible that) I could care less."
> or
> "(In your wildest dreams don't imagine that) I could care less."
> 
> (Kaleidoscope: I think you must be just weird - I've never come across anything like that )


 
Well, I really hate to waste such an impassioned defense,  but I think the expression is simply idiomatic, without a deeper underlying rationale.  My kids started saying it at some point during their school years, and when I questioned them, they agreed it made no logical sense.  But it was the way their contemporaries made the point.


----------



## MissFit

This is one of my pet peeves.  I agree with JamesM...those who say, "I could care less" are mangling a cliché.  If they really could care less, then they do care--at least a little, but what they really mean to say is that they don't care at all.


----------



## zerduja

this analysis I believe from you is the best."I could care less" implies some degree of caring


----------



## LV4-26

As "I couldn't care less" predates "I could care less", we spontaneoulsy interpret the latter as an equivalent of the former.
Otherwise, I would surely interpret _I could care less_ as an understatement for "I care too much".


----------



## cuchuflete

It's idiomatic.   I hear both forms, and understand them to mean exactly the same thing.  Those who would spend time analyzing the internal logic or illogic are more than welcome to that passtime.  The AE form is probably a corruption of the BE form, but the intention is identical.


----------



## MissFit

cuchuflete said:


> It's idiomatic. I hear both forms, and understand them to mean exactly the same thing. Those who would spend time analyzing the internal logic or illogic are more than welcome to that passtime. The AE form is probably a corruption of the BE form, but the intention is identical.


 
I must defend the logic of my countrymen.   "Could care less" is not _the_ AE form.  It may be _an_ AE form, but I certainly wouldn't claim it.  If you inventory the previous posts in this thread, you'll notice that none of us who've posted admit to saying "could care less" but the consensus is that it's a mistake or at least an illogical idiom.


----------



## JamesM

MissFit said:


> I must defend the logic of my countrymen. "Could care less" is not _the_ AE form. It may be _an_ AE form, but I certainly wouldn't claim it. If you inventory the previous posts in this thread, you'll notice that none of us who've posted admit to saying "could care less" but the consensus is that it's a mistake or at least an illogical idiom.


 
I'll second that!   There are _some_ people who say, "I could care less", but "I couldn't care less" is far more common in the U.S., in my experience.


----------



## cuchuflete

MissFit said:


> I must defend the logic of my countrymen.   "Could care less" is not _the_ AE form.  It may be _an_ AE form...


If more than 40% of us cast ballots tomorrow, I'll agree that our countrymen have some valid claim to logic.  Sadly, most voters couldn't care less, and/or could care less.


----------



## foxfirebrand

I grew up saying "I could care less," and to me it is a perfect example of that "Anglo-Saxon irony" I'm always talking about.

"I don't half fancy you."  Not in my vocabulary, but I've heard it in britcoms and it sounds to me like the same kind of deadpan "misuse" of the negative-- or an implied double-negative form, where "I don't dislike" is the A-S-ironic form of "I like."  Or consider the one I usually mention when this topic comes up-- "a lot" in A-S-ironic becomes "a not inconsiderable sum."

My source of the expression is my mother, whose variant, learned from her Scots-Canadian mother, was so conservative she still said thinks like "I hied me" instead of "I hurried."  So I sincerely doubt "I could care less" does not derive from BE.  The point has been validly been made that provincials and colonials sometimes preserve idiom now long-forgotten in BE, but current at the time of their emigration from the Home Isles.  For my mother's family that would be somewhat early in the 17th century.
.
.


----------



## MissFit

foxfirebrand said:


> ..."I don't half fancy you." Not in my vocabulary, but I've heard it in britcoms and it sounds to me like the same kind of deadpan "misuse" of the negative-- or an implied double-negative form, where "I don't dislike" is the A-S-ironic form of "I like." Or consider the one I usually mention when this topic comes up-- "a lot" in A-S-ironic becomes "a not inconsiderable sum.".


 
I'd say those are perfectly logical. If I don't half fancy you, then I completely fancy you--or I fancy you more than halfway. There's no double negative there. It's the same as saying "I like you, and not just a little."

If I don't dislike something, then I like it (at least a little.) It is a double negative, and so is "not an inconsiderable sum" but they are intentionally doubly negative--the meaning amounts to a positive. It amounts to the same as "a considerable sum," but it emphasizes what the sum is not (small) rather than what it is (large.) A double negative is only wrong when the meaning is supposed to be negative.



> My source of the expression is my mother, whose variant, learned from her Scots-Canadian mother, was so conservative she still said thinks like "I hied me" instead of "I hurried." So I sincerely doubt "I could care less" does not derive from BE. The point has been validly been made that provincials and colonials sometimes preserve idiom now long-forgotten in BE, but current at the time of their emigration from the Home Isles. For my mother's family that would be somewhat early in the 17th century..


Hmmm. Interesting theory. I always assumed that it was ignorance, illiteracy, or a laziness  that turned "I couldn't care less" into "I could care less." I never thought about it evolving the other direction. Yes, let's blame this oddity on our forebears. After all, they aren't around to defend themselves.


----------



## river

"Could care less" is just a mistake that caught on. Think of the big mistake immortalized in Handel's _Messiah _"Peace on earth and goodwill toward men" that should read "Peace on earth to men of goodwill."  Or think of "have your cake and eat it too." I can have it and eat it, but I can't eat it and have it. I'm sure there are many other examples.


----------



## foxfirebrand

river said:


> "Could care less" is just a mistake that caught on.


Easy for you to say-- and, I'd wager with some confidence, a whole lot harder to document.  In fact, why don't you show us some?
.
.


----------



## MissFit

river said:


> "Could care less" is just a mistake that caught on. Think of the big mistake immortalized in Handel's _Messiah _"Peace on earth and goodwill toward men" that should read "Peace on earth to men of goodwill." Or think of "have your cake and eat it too." I can have it and eat it, but I can't eat it and have it. I'm sure there are many other examples.


 
Big Mistake? "Peace on earth, good will toward men" is a nearly a direct quote from the King James Bible: "...Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." Luke 2:14. How is that a big mistake?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. That is the point of that expression. That's no mistake either. "Could care less"--now that's probably a mistake, the result of repeating a cliche without paying attention to what it means--just like James M's example, "heart-rendering."


----------



## panjandrum

MissFit said:


> Big Mistake? "Peace on earth, good will toward men" is a nearly a direct quote from the King James Bible: "...Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." Luke 2:14. How is that a big mistake?[...]


There is no doubt that Handel got it right, in terms of his use of the translation current at the time when he composed his Messiah -  first performed in Dublin.

Since then, biblical scholars have begun to favour the alternative meaning river suggests.

Returning to the topic, rather like other extremely common sayings, this one is not susceptible to logical argument either way.  We absorbed whichever of these we favour at a very early age.  It's genetic


----------



## river

MissFit said:


> Big Mistake? "Peace on earth, good will toward men" is a nearly a direct quote from the King James Bible: "...Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." Luke 2:14. How is that a big mistake?
> 
> You can't have your cake and eat it too. That is the point of that expression. That's no mistake either. "Could care less"--now that's probably a mistake, the result of repeating a cliche without paying attention to what it means--just like James M's example, "heart-rendering."


 

"Can't have your cake and eat it" is not logical. See, I have my cake. Now I'm eating it. _But _I cannot eat it and still have it. http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/eatcake.html


----------



## blindsay

I agree it's just idiomatic.

But in defence of "I could care less", I think it has the feeling of being even more dirisive.  You say it a bit slower, a bit more accented, and with much more bitterness.

On the contrary, "I could not care less" tends to have a more 'matter of fact' and 'uppity' feel to it.


----------



## MissFit

river said:


> "Can't have your cake and eat it" is not logical. See, I have my cake. Now I'm eating it. _But _I cannot eat it and still have it. http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/eatcake.html


 
??? You say it's not logical, but you explain why it is.  You can't have a literal cake (keep it on a plate in your hands and continue to admire it) and eat it too. It's not possible.  If you eat it, you don't have it any longer.

As a metaphor, it can go either way. If a man has a happy wife and kids at home, but he's got a girlfriend "on the side" who is also happy and undemanding (and doesn't know he's married), then you might say he's discovered a way to have his cake and eat it too. He's doing the impossible. (At least until he gets caught!)

If your friend has restored a hot classic muscle car and he wants to take it to car shows and show it off, but he also wants to drive it all over town in any weather and drag race every weekend, you might warn him that he can't have his cake and eat it too, meaning he can't have it both ways.


----------



## maxiogee

Has it never occurred to anyone that —> one *must* have one's cake if one wishes to eat it.

The whole kerfuffle with this lies in the understanding of the word "and" - does it imply contemporaneity, or does it imply sequence?

It is obvious that one cannot have a cake, eat it, and still have it.
It is equally obvious that one cannot eat a cake one doesn't yet have.

It would be best if this 'adage' were to be reversed to read "You want to eat your cake and have it" but I imagine that this would be dogging a fled horse.


----------



## river

I have cake and eat it all the time. I go out, buy a cake, then eat it (possibe).

But I have never eaten the cake and still had it. Impossible - which is the point of the phrase.


----------



## andersxman

I have heard this expression often in films, I think, but is it really like this...? I always thought it was "I could*n't* care less about" but I have never really understood it, or at least I'm not sure that I am 100% correct in my assumptions as to how to use it..

Let me try and see if I can get it right:

"Are you still with Jasmin" "No, I have left her - I _*could care less about*_ her" (meaning: I don't care about her at all)

"Did Manchester Utd win yesterday?" "I don't know, *I could care less*"

(Meaning he doesn't care at all how the game ended..)

Or is it supposed to be "*I couldn't care less*"?????


----------



## Ruslana

I understand that phase as: 

*This is the last thing I could care about (i.e. I don't care at all).* 

It should be *I couldn't care less* in your examples.


----------



## Stefan Ivanovich

*This thread on the same topic* should be a help.


----------



## Chazzwozzer

Check this out, it provides a satisfying answer.


----------



## Stefan Ivanovich

Chazzwozzer said:


> Check this out, it provides a satisfying answer.


What this site seems to imply is that "_I could care less_" means "_I care somewhat_", which it doesn't, at least not on both sides of the Atlantic! Admittedly this site is mildly sarcastic! 
Or am I wrong?


----------



## andersxman

Thanks for the links.. They sort of contradict eachother though, but I would back the one that claims that "_I could care less about that_" means _"I couldn't care less about that"_

Well, I got to think of this when I was reading a text on traders in investmentbanks.. It said (I do not have the text here with me, but this is more or less what it said

"traders could care less about how the bond performs once it has been sold".. (Basically, traders need to sell bonds and earn the bid/ask spread, and then it's no their problem if the bond defaults or anything..)

Hence, I would say that "I could care less" = "I couldn't care less"...

But no final verdict has been expressed in this case!


----------



## caballoschica

I couldn't care less is much more common.  This means you don't care at all.

I could care less means you probably care, but shouldn't care so much.  And you could care less, but you still want to care.  If that makes any sense.  It's hardly ever used.


----------



## cuchuflete

We are going in circles.  Please do not continue the journey before reading the linked threads:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=266677
and others available with Search.


----------



## cuchuflete

caballoschica said:


> I couldn't care less is much more common.  This means you don't care at all.
> 
> I could care less means you probably care, but shouldn't care so much.  And you could care less, but you still want to care.  If that makes any sense.  *It's hardly ever used.*



Assertions such as the one I have highlighted have a small problem:  They are hardly ever correct.   Please limit such blanket exclusions to your geography, age group, or other criteria.


----------



## caballoschica

caballoschica said:


> I couldn't care less is much more common.  This means you don't care at all.
> 
> I could care less means you probably care, but shouldn't care so much.  And you could care less, but you still want to care.  If that makes any sense.  It's hardly ever used _at least where I am_. I don't know about other areas.


----------



## panjandrum

I've glued today's thread to the end of the last one.

This is an endless discussion, with no prospect of resolution.  To quote a very wise comment from the previous thread:


			
				panjandrum said:
			
		

> ... rather like other extremely common sayings, this one is not susceptible to logical argument either way. We absorbed whichever of these we favour at a very early age. It's genetic


----------



## mplsray

panjandrum said:


> I've glued today's thread to the end of the last one.
> 
> This is an endless discussion, with no prospect of resolution. To quote a very wise comment from the previous thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *panjandrum*
> ... rather like other extremely common sayings, this one is not susceptible to logical argument either way. We absorbed whichever of these we favour at a very early age. It's genetic
Click to expand...

 
Here's my two-cents' worth on the matter: 

I would have no objection to a speaker of British English objecting to another speaker of BrE using _I could care less_ on the basis that it just isn't used, just as I would have no objection to an American objecting to another American using _to take the mickey._ But arguments based upon logic--whether made by a speaker of British English against a speaker of American English or by one American against another--are entirely without justification.

Both _I couldn't care less_ and _I could care less_ are idioms with a meaning equivalent to _I don't care._ The notion that there is some subtle distinction between _I couldn't care less_ and _I don't care,_ as well as the notion that _I could care less_ is a subtle, jocular usage, are simply not supported by the evidence of current usage, however much these ideas might be of historical (etymological) interest. See the subentry *care less* in the_ Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary_ under the entry for the verb *care.*

Given that they are both idioms, any objection to _I could care less_ on logical grounds is simply improper.


----------



## chepe jones

"I couldn't care less"
"I could care less"

"I couldn't give a damn"
"I could give a damn"

In North America, both the negative "couldn't" and positive "could" constructions in these two examples mean the same thing: "I don't care."

Why is this?  Which way of phrasing it is the older of the two?  Is one more accepted than the other?

Ch.


----------



## LaReinita

I saw another post about this somewhere.

I could care less--Doesn't make sense, because that is saying that I DO CARE.

I couldn't care less=I don't care.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=266677


----------



## Vagabond

LaReinita said:


> I saw another post about this somewhere.
> 
> I could care less--Doesn't make sense, because that is saying that I DO CARE.
> 
> I couldn't care less=I don't care.


Yeah, but it is widely used, isn't it? Seeing that it is a fixed expression used by native speakers to convey one single meaning, in my opinion it can't be considered as either wrong or nonsensical. 

But yeah, I agree that "couldn't care less" is the original one.


----------



## LaReinita

I think "I could care less" was started by someone who misunderstood what was actually said.  The phrase makes no sense in the context that it is being used.  My whole life I've always thought people looked like idiots when they use that expression. (like irregardless or same difference)


----------



## Vagabond

LaReinita said:


> I think "I could care less" was started by someone who misunderstood what was actually said. The phrase makes no sense in the context that it is being used. My whole life I've always thought people looked like idiots when they use that expression. (like irregardless or same difference)


Ah. Okay, you hit a soft spot there. I can't stand "irregardless" either.


----------



## cuchuflete

The current thread has been merged with another long discussion of the same matter.


----------



## arturolczykowski

I've found this:

"Clichés are especially prone to scrambling because they become meaningless through overuse. In this case an expression which originally meant “it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all” is rendered senseless by being transformed into the now-common “I could care less.” Think about it: if you could care less, that means you care some. The original already drips sarcasm, so it’s pointless to argue that the newer version is “ironic.” People who misuse this phrase are just being careless".   Paul Brians "Common Errors in English Usage".


----------



## cuchuflete

> "Clichés are especially prone to scrambling because they become meaningless through overuse.



I could care less what this gent has to say.  And I couldn't care less what this gent has to say.  His boundless expertise tells us that "Clichés are..." overused!  Eureka!   As we all know, making such conclusions is
easy as pie, and the argument isn't over till the fat lady sings.  When push comes to shove, there is no scrambling leading to meaninglessness in either form.  

I just used a number of clichés to debunk this silliness, but I expect you could care less.


----------



## winklepicker

cuchuflete said:


> I just used a number of clichés to debunk this silliness, but I expect you could care less.


In fairness, cuchu, you haven't really addressed the issue: as we observe daily at WRF a strong expression of belief - however sincerely held - does not make converts.  

His central statement surely is that _'an expression which originally meant “it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all” is rendered senseless by being transformed into the now-common “I could care less.” Think about it: if you could care less, that means you care some.'_

At the very least, that argument deserves a reasoned rebuttal, wouldn't you say?


----------



## mplsray

arturolczykowski said:


> I've found this:
> 
> "Clichés are especially prone to scrambling because they become meaningless through overuse. In this case an expression which originally meant “it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all” is rendered senseless by being transformed into the now-common “I could care less.” Think about it: if you could care less, that means you care some. The original already drips sarcasm, so it’s pointless to argue that the newer version is “ironic.” People who misuse this phrase are just being careless". Paul Brians "Common Errors in English Usage".


 
Paul Brians is wrong on four counts:

First, neither _I couldn't care less_ nor _I could care less_ is a cliché. They are simply expressions, alternate ways of indicating that the person being spoken is replying to the one he is addressing that he does not care.

Second, clichés _never_ become meaningless. At worst, they change their meaning. At best, they hold the same meaning they did originally, when they were a fresh expression and not a cliché, but they have now ceased to be a particularly interesting way to express the meaning intended. For example, _as happy as a clam at high tide_ became _as happy as a clam_ without changing its meaning, which was to indicate that the person who was happy was quite happy.

Third, and this goes along with my first point above, _I couldn't care less_ does _not _indicate anything stronger than that the person does not care. It no doubt did begin with the strong meaning that the person cares so very little that it would be impossible for him to care less. But it long ago lost that meaning.

Finally, there is no justification in seeing _I could care less_ as a "careless" usage because it means _precisely_ the same as _I couldn't care less._ How _I could care less_ originated is a matter of dispute, but an examination of how the two expressions are used in actual speech (rather than in mere theoretical discussions) should leave no doubt that, in those varieties of English which use them (American English, certainly, and, I expect, Canadian English), they serve precisely the same function. A person who uses either expression is saying just what he means to say.


----------



## cuchuflete

The reasoned rebuttal has been supplied by mplsray, and very nicely.


----------



## river

Brians is correct on all counts.

*Couldn't care less* is the correct and logical phrasing. "A listener has not heard the whole phrase; he has heard a slurred form. _Couldn't care_ has two dental stops practically together, _dnt_. This is heard only as _d _and slurring results. The outcome is _I c'd care less_." _Garner's Modern American Usage_

_Could care less_ is just a mistake that caught on like ice tea instead of iced tea.


----------



## mrbilal87

I agree with both river and mplsray. I wouldn't consider it a careless use of English but I also wouldn't say "I could care less", because it doesn't makes sense to me logically. I remember I had a teacher who would always say it that way and, because I was a little smart aleck then, I would always respond to her saying, "so you actually do care?" Although I obviously understood what she meant in saying "I could care less", it always sounded to me that she was saying she actually did care a little bit and could care even less.

Anyway, that was my two cents.


----------



## cuchuflete

Posit two customers in a restaurant.  Each wants a tall glass of cold tea with ice cubes floating in it, and perhaps a wedge of lemon.  Posit a waiter.

One customer requests ice tea, while the other asks for a glass of iced tea.  Both know what they are requesting, and both are requesting the same libation.  The waiter understands, without a second thought, the nature of both requests.  
Both customers receive the same type of drink.

Logic has no part in the transactions.  Communication has occurred twice, and clearly in both cases.
No clichés have been employed.  No dental stops have been considered.  Elvis has not been spotted leaving the building.


----------



## mplsray

river said:


> Brians is correct on all counts.
> 
> *Couldn't care less* is the correct and logical phrasing. "A listener has not heard the whole phrase; he has heard a slurred form. _Couldn't care_ has two dental stops practically together, _dnt_. This is heard only as _d _and slurring results. The outcome is _I c'd care less_." _Garner's Modern American Usage_
> 
> _Could care less_ is just a mistake that caught on like ice tea instead of iced tea.


 
I think that _I couldn't care less_ probably came about for two reasons, one phonological and one semantic. I believe there is a phonological tendency for _-n't_ to drop out, but it usually stays because if it were dropped the danger of misunderstanding occurs. There is no danger of this happening, however, in the case of the _ain'_ (also spelled _ain_) variant of _ain't_ in African American Vernacular English, because _ain_ can easily carry all by itself the negative force which is needed.

There is also no danger of this happening in the case of _I couldn't care less_ because the word _less_ carries negative polarity. It is because of this that _I couldn't care less_ (which at the time must already have lost the strong meaning which it originally had) could become _I could care less_ with no loss in meaning.

Note, however that this is only one theory for the change from_ I couldn't care less_ to _I could care less._ There is also the theory based upon irony. According to this theory, _I could care less_ originally was used very deliberately as an ironic usage, with the intent of carrying the idea "I could care less, but I can't be bothered trying to do so" or, as most holders of this theory put it, "I _could_ care less, but I won't." If this theory is true, then not only is my theory wrong (I make no claim that this theory is original with me, but I would certainly like it to be proven to be correct), but Garner's analysis is utterly wrong as well. According to the theory from irony, the relationship between _I could care less, but I won't_ and _I could care less_ somewhat resembles that between _happy as a clam_ and _happy as a clam at high tide._ And the change in meaning of _I couldn't care less_ from a strong meaning to a weak one, so that it ends up meaning simply "I don't care," has a parallel with the change in meaning of "I could care less, but I won't" to _I could care less,_ meaning simply "I don't care"!


----------



## LV4-26

I suggest that we adopt "_I could care *more*_", as a nice form of understatement for _I couldn't care less. _


----------



## winklepicker

cuchuflete said:


> Logic has no part in the transactions.


Righto, Humpty-Dumpty! 

I disagree with everything that has been said above. (By the way, when I say that, it means exactly the same as _I agree with everything that has been said above_.)


----------



## foxfirebrand

What an old thread to resurrect!  And an obvious prompt for an old dead issue like me to revisit this overtly civil but covertly contentious site.

I thought I had settled it all by pointing out that the original form (I could care less) is *ironic.*  Maybe I should have added that the negative form is literal-- also limiting in meaning.  The bourgeoisie on both sides of the Atlantic is less uncomfortable with limiting its meaning than it has ever been with irony-- an affront to the cult of Respectability that ranges from nuisance to Nemesis.  But I digress.

I could care less-- but I don't.

I could care less-- and pigs could also fly.

"Even educated fleas do it" is not an unironic statement about actual fleas.  There is an intelligent consciousness about the absurdity or contradiction involved in the expression-- as with all ironic constructions.

"Imagine my surprise."

"Of course it goes without saying that..."

"What hump?"


----------



## Polak

Maybe we could look at the "I could care less" form this way. 
It depends a lot on the tone of voice (which many contexts do not reveal in translation) We could make sense of this by placing "as if" before the phrase, which is understood particularly given the nonchalant contexts we usually find it uttered - i.e.  "as if I could care less", suggesting - if there were any way for it to happpen I could (still) care less.
maybe!


----------



## konungursvia

I think "I could care less" is an abbreviation, a slurred manner of saying "I couldn't care less" rather than a distinct approach or a legitimate variation on the theme. I would compare this phenomenon to another we see, which also divides AE and BE, this time with AE looking more conservative: round and around, used as adverbs. In North America, round is strictly an adjective meaning circular. I think in both cases, things just got shortened, so we sometimes hear "I could care less" with the "n't" glossed over, but not considered absent.


----------



## mplsray

konungursvia said:


> I think "I could care less" is an abbreviation, a slurred manner of saying "I couldn't care less" rather than a distinct approach or a legitimate variation on the theme. I would compare this phenomenon to another we see, which also divides AE and BE, this time with AE looking more conservative: round and around, used as adverbs. In North America, round is strictly an adjective meaning circular. I think in both cases, things just got shortened, so we sometimes hear "I could care less" with the "n't" glossed over, but not considered absent.


 
Again, this is an argument from etymology, _and a controversial etymology at that._ There is no widespread agreement among etymologists and linguists about how _I could care less_ originated.[1]

In any case, etymology is illegitimate when discussing whether a usage is acceptable: A usage is acceptable if and only if it is acceptable, and that acceptability is determined by how the usage is used. This is a circular situation, but _not_ a matter of an illegitimate circular argument: Just as polite people use polite language, and polite language is that which is used by polite people[2], the reality of standard language is that standard language is the language spoken by educated speakers of the language, and educated speakers of the language speak standard language.

In any case, I am a standard speaker who uses _I could care less,_ and I do not recognize it as missing anything: It is a complete expression with a set meaning. It makes no more sense for me to see the expression _I could care less_ as _now_ missing a syllable than it would for me to think of the word _bus_ as now missing a prefix.

Notes: 

[1] It occurs to me that there is a third possibility, not yet mentioned. _I could care less_ may have originated as an ironic usage, but the negative polarity of _less,_ previously mentioned, may have helped to suppress the ironic nature of the expression.

[2] Consider, for example, how in the US the racial term _black,_ once an impolite term, has now become a polite term, while _colored person,_ once a polite term, has now become an impolite term.


----------



## winklepicker

mplsray said:


> Again, this is an argument from etymology, _and a controversial etymology at that._ There is no widespread agreement among etymologists and linguists about how _I could care less_ originated


Lots of interesting points here, mplsray, but you don't address the central question: how can two phrases whose literal meanings are diametrically opposed end up meaning _*the same thing*_? 

I am a black man. (This should be interpreted to mean 'I am NOT a black man'.)


----------



## cuchuflete

winklepicker said:


> Lots of interesting points here, mplsray, but you don't address the central question: how can two phrases whose literal meanings are diametrically opposed end up meaning _*the same thing*_?


 

I am unconcerned, other than out of an enduring etymological curiosity, _*how*_ two phrases whose words mean the same thing to those who speak them and to those who hear them came to be that way.  

Are these the only illogical phrases in common use in the English language?


For those who want to find something to fight about, where there is no cause for belligerent action, I freely grant you that the two phrases are, on a logical plane, and in terms of the non-idiomatic use of all the words they contain, diametrically opposed.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings!  That's equally bereft of logic.  All it lacks is a companion piece that has come, by hook or by crook, to literally mean that it's all over before the corpulent female
croons.   

From this corner, "That's all she wrote!"


----------



## winklepicker

No, cuchu, it won't do. I am prepared to concede that 'I could care less' means the same as 'I couldn't care less'. But before I do I would like to hear a cogent argument that persuades me. So far all I hear is opinions. Spare me any more - I have plenty of my own, thank you*. 

_* Many of them almost as suspect as those expressed here..._


----------



## Josh_

winklepicker said:


> No, cuchu, it won't do. I am prepared to concede that 'I could care less' means the same as 'I couldn't care less'. But before I do I would like to hear a cogent argument that persuades me. So far all I hear is opinions. Spare me any more - I have plenty of my own, thank you.


I don't see what the big deal is.  English is filled with lots things  that seem illogical, contrary to some standard, and oxymoronic. Phrases such as "I don't want nothing from you" are exceedingly common in English where the literal meaning is opposite -- some might even say diametrically opposed -- to the intended meaning.  I started a thread about the apparent paradoxical nature of the phrase "near miss" and its synonym "near hit." Remember that language is dictated by usage, not what _should_ be correct.  I agree that "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less" mean the same thing, but I have no problem with that, even if the literal meanings are opposite.


----------



## Old Novice

winklepicker said:


> No, cuchu, it won't do. I am prepared to concede that 'I could care less' means the same as 'I couldn't care less'. But before I do I would like to hear a cogent argument  that persuades me. So far all I hear is opinions. Spare me any more - I have plenty of my own, thank you*.
> 
> _* Many of them almost as suspect as those expressed here..._



Hi, winklepicker.  I haven't posted in this thread since no. 10, but the comment I made there is still relevant, I think.

Regarding your request for a cogent argument, I'm not sure it's a matter of argument, but rather one of fact.  That is, I don't know how we could prove that the two phrases mean the same thing other than by asking people who use the one that seems odd what they mean by it.  I did that, and to people of my children's generation, the two phrases mean exactly the same thing.

I couldn't agree more that it is illogical.  Even my kids, the source of my knowledge that the phrases mean the same thing in common parlance in their generation, agree it's illogical.  But there it is.


----------



## mplsray

winklepicker said:


> Lots of interesting points here, mplsray, but you don't address the central question: how can two phrases whose literal meanings are diametrically opposed end up meaning _*the same thing*_?
> 
> I am a black man. (This should be interpreted to mean 'I am NOT a black man'.)


 
I don't believe that is the central question. 

I'd consider the central question*s* to be those asked by the original poster, *chesty,* shown below in boldface with my answers:

*For those of you who are confused by this (and it is a little confusing), despite all appearances, both forms mean the same thing; that is they are both used (as far as I am aware), to express dismissive indifference.*

*Is it a straightforward split between BE and AE?*

*BE: "I couldn't care less" *
*AE: "I could care less"*

_I could care less_ is found primarily among speakers of American English. It has had a limited use among speakers of British English.

*Is the use of "I could care less" disputed among speakers of AE?*
*I don't think that the use of "I couldn't care less" is disputed among BE speakers, though I may be wrong.*

There are some Americans who dislike _I could care less,_ but that does not (has not as of yet, in any case, and I predict, will not) affect its standard status. _I could care less_ is a standard usage among educated speakers of American English. See, for example, the subentry _care less_ under the entry for the verb _care_ in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: 


*— care less **:* not to care — used positively and negatively with the same meaning

*To my mind at least there is a limiting logic to "I couldn't care less" (which I take to be the BE version). It denies the existence of a level of caring inferior to my own - pretty strong stuff!*

*Maybe I'm stuck in a rut, but I cannot seem to wring any similarly compelling internal logic from "I could care less"; is there anyone out there who can?*

The literal meaning is irrelevant. Both expressions are idioms, so a literal interpretation of them is as pointless as wondering why _head over heels_ shows the head to be in its normal position in relation to the heels.

If you still wish to find a historical "compelling internal logic," you will find it in the ironic origin theory of _I could care less,_ which was mentioned earlier in this (combined) thread. That theory is disputed, however.

To *winklepicker:* There is a whole category of English words and phrases which have an opposite meaning, of which word recreationists are fond of keeping lists. _To stand fast_ and _to run fast,_ for example (the two usages, if I remember correctly what I've read, both descend from the same word).

Then there are English words which once meant one thing and now mean another: _Inhabitable_ once meant "uninhabitable" (as _inhabitable_ still does in French).


----------



## winklepicker

mplsray said:


> To *winklepicker:* There is a whole category of English words and phrases which have an opposite meaning, of which word recreationists are fond of keeping lists. _To stand fast_ and _to run fast,_ for example (the two usages, if I remember correctly what I've read, both descend from the same word).


Damn. You've caught me out. I was afeared I wouldn't get away with it. OK OK, the completely illogical _I could care less_ goes into the canon.

But I don't have to like it - and I don't!


----------



## cuchuflete

winklepicker said:


> But I don't have to like it - and I don't!



I'm glad you have sanctioned it.  And...that you have sanctioned it.


----------



## river

winklepicker said:


> But I don't have to like it - and I don't!


 
And there is good reason not to like it. _Could care less_ - right up there with _irregardless_ - just looks wrong.


----------



## mustang72

I'm neither British nor American but live in the US now. For me -- from that perspective -- it's rather simple.

I learned a lot of the basic english (BE) in school but a sentence like this is learned in a conversation or also on TV. Sometimes it is really tough to hear such differences and make up the perfect sense at the same time. Believe me, you're fine when you understand what the other person is talking about. And as basically everyone agrees the meaning is equal and understood by everyone.

But how do I recall that sentence. For someone who is not native to English it is a hard time to recall words or even a whole sentence like this and think about logic at the same time. You speak what comes to your mind first. Sometimes we even bring in the logic of our first language in a literal translation. Although English is the primary language in the US I think not many use English based on the BE and that's why there are so many differences.

Oh, before I forget. _I could care less_ doesn't sound well for me (or is it to me) but I cannot guarantee that I wouldn't say it that way the next time. I'm not there yet!


----------



## chepe jones

foxfirebrand said:


> What an old thread to resurrect!  And an obvious prompt for an old dead issue like me to revisit this overtly civil but covertly contentious site.
> 
> I thought I had settled it all by pointing out that the original form (I could care less) is *ironic.*  Maybe I should have added that the negative form is literal-- also limiting in meaning.  The bourgeoisie on both sides of the Atlantic is less uncomfortable with limiting its meaning than it has ever been with irony-- an affront to the cult of Respectability that ranges from nuisance to Nemesis.  But I digress.



I'm glad you came out of wordreference retirement, foxfirebrand.  your posts have been my favorites on this topic. I completely agree that language is commonly ironic, and I would add, rebellious.  

It seems to me that poor urban youth of color in the US are responsible for more English language evolution in North America than any other group, and they appear to care more for creativity, dignity, and flavor than for rules.... and i can dig that.

Perhaps it was also the case with scottish indentured servants years ago when "I could care less" may have been popularized. my secret suspicion is that "could care less" predates "couldn't care less," just as English used to have what are now termed "double negatives" (Spanish continues to use this construction).

I understand that "ain't" was perfectly acceptable at one time before some cultural authority deemed that incorrect (to facilitate an easy differentiation between the classes?)...

Cheers,
ch. j.


----------



## mrbilal87

I just came across this topic in Paul Brians' _Common Errors in English Usage, _who is an American who's also opposed to transforming the phrase to "I could care less." He says:



> I could care less vs. I couldn't care less: Clichés are especially prone to scrambling because they become meaningless through overuse. In this case an expression which originally meant “it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all” is rendered senseless by being transformed into the now-common “I could care less.” Think about it: if you could care less, that means you care some. The original already drips sarcasm, so it’s pointless to argue that the newer version is “ironic.” People who misuse this phrase are just being careless.


----------



## cuchuflete

*Post # 47 of this thread,  			 				5th March 2007, 01:23 PM*


arturolczykowski said:


> I've found this:
> 
> "Clichés are especially prone to scrambling because they become meaningless through overuse. In this case an expression which originally meant “it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all” is rendered senseless by being transformed into the now-common “I could care less.” Think about it: if you could care less, that means you care some. The original already drips sarcasm, so it’s pointless to argue that the newer version is “ironic.” People who misuse this phrase are just being careless".   Paul Brians "Common Errors in English Usage".





mrbilal87 said:


> I just came across this topic in Paul Brians' _Common Errors in English Usage, _who is an American who's also opposed to transforming the phrase to "I could care less." He says:



Do we care less if there is an echo in this thread?


----------



## mrbilal87

cuchuflete said:


> *Post # 47 of this thread,                               5th March 2007, 01:23 PM*
> 
> 
> 
> Do we care less if there is an echo in this thread?



Whoops, I didn't notice that post. 

Sorry!


----------



## mplsray

mrbilal87 said:


> Whoops, I didn't notice that post.
> 
> Sorry!


 
I raised four objections to Paul Brian's analysis of _I could care less_ when I replied to *arturolczykowski*'s post. However, your post gave me an opportunity to notice a fifth problem with Brian's commentary, and a rather grave one. He makes a non sequitur argument when he says, "The original [_I couldn't care less_] already drips sarcasm, so it’s pointless to argue that the newer version is 'ironic.'"

It is hardly pointless. There is such a thing as irony piled upon irony: Do a Google search for _hyperironic._ Such a term would certainly seem to fit _I could care less_ if indeed it is consciously used as a variant on _I couldn't care less._

Now, I am skeptical about _I could care less_ having first arisen as an ironic variant of _I couldn't care less,_ as I have expressed previously. However, I have also been in Internet forums in which members have insisted quite strongly that they themselves had in the past used _I could care less_ ironically, and I have no reason to doubt their word that they had done so. I disagree with them that that is how the expression _originated,_ although we, and that includes Brian, don't have sufficient information to settle the matter conclusively one way or the other.


----------



## mplsray

chepe jones said:


> It seems to me that poor urban youth of color in the US are responsible for more English language evolution in North America than any other group, and they appear to care more for creativity, dignity, and flavor than for rules.... and i can dig that.
> 
> Perhaps it was also the case with scottish indentured servants years ago when "I could care less" may have been popularized. my secret suspicion is that "could care less" predates "couldn't care less," just as English used to have what are now termed "double negatives" (Spanish continues to use this construction).


 

Michael Quinion says that _I couldn't care less_ is a British coinage dating to 1946. He identifies _I could care less_ as an American coinage which "may have begun to be used in the early 1960s, though it turns up in a written form only in 1966."


----------



## JeffJo

chesty said:


> "I couldn't care less"
> "I could care less"



The latter is a sarcastic rejoinder to the former, and is deliberately left incomplete to match the pattern of the former.


----------



## JamesM

JeffJo said:


> The latter is a sarcastic rejoinder to the former, and is deliberately left incomplete to match the pattern of the former.


 
Honestly, the sarcasm of the "could care less" version escapes me.  It seems about as effective a sarcastic rejoinder as:

"And I'm no idiot."
"Well, I am!"

If someone could explain what is the intended sarcastic meaning of "I could care less", I'd be interested in hearing it.  (Perhaps this is covered previously in the thread.  If so, please feel free to simply quote the applicable post.)


----------



## mplsray

JamesM said:


> Honestly, the sarcasm of the "could care less" version escapes me. It seems about as effective a sarcastic rejoinder as:
> 
> "And I'm no idiot."
> "Well, I am!"
> 
> If someone could explain what is the intended sarcastic meaning of "I could care less", I'd be interested in hearing it. (Perhaps this is covered previously in the thread. If so, please feel free to simply quote the applicable post.)


 
The argument is commonly expressed as if there were words elided from the expression: _I could care less (but I won't try)/I could care less (but I won't make the attempt)._

To return to the original sense of _I couldn't care less,_ the expression meant "There is no level of caring below that at which I find myself now, so I am caring the least it is possible to care"[1].

The person who would intentionally change that to _I could care less_ would be making an ironic/sarcastic change so that _I could care less_ would mean "There _is_ a level of caring below that at which I find myself now, but I care so little about the matter that I am not even going to make the attempt to reach that lower level of caring." Note that this leaves the logical analysis of _I could care less_ as being "I care a little bit." But since ironic/sarcastic speech is speech _which one does not actually mean,_ it easily survives this analysis! Nevertheless, I have no reason to believe that this is how the expression _I could care less_ actually came about, giving more credence to an explanation hinging on the negative polarity of _less._

[1]I don't believe the expression can seriously be argued to mean that anymore. It is now an idiom meaning nothing more than_ I don't care_ and is a linguistic module which can be replaced with (according to the register) a number of other expressions: _I don't care. I could care less. I don't care a damn. I don't give a sh*t,_ and other such expressions.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

mplsray said:


> There are some Americans who dislike _I could care less,_ but that does not (has not as of yet, in any case, and I predict, will not) affect its standard status. _I could care less_ is a standard usage among educated speakers of American English.


It may be a common usage, and a widespread usage, but it is hardly a "standard" one, no matter what the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) entries of modern dictionaries say.

For my part, I do not regard "I could care less" as something to be _disliked_.  Instead, I regard it as a clear verbal signal of the speaker's ignorance and sloppy grammar.  In my experience, genuinely educated speakers of AE (as opposed to those who merely claim to be in possession of an education, but whose speech patterns indicate otherwise) simply do not use this foolish form.


----------



## mplsray

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> It may be a common usage, and a widespread usage, but it is hardly a "standard" one, no matter what the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) entries of modern dictionaries say.
> 
> For my part, I do not regard "I could care less" as something to be _disliked_. Instead, I regard it as a clear verbal signal of the speaker's ignorance and sloppy grammar. In my experience, genuinely educated speakers of AE (as opposed to those who merely claim to be in possession of an education, but whose speech patterns indicate otherwise) simply do not use this foolish form.


 
I use _I could care less._ You can judge from my writing in this forum whether I am an educated person.

Since there is no Academy of the English Language, it is utterly meaningless to speak of any other standard of the English language than that uncovered by descriptivists. By the very nature of how they handle the question of standard usage, they are forced to be largely in agreement. By contrast, prescriptivists' opinions are all over the map because they are utterly lacking in any unifying principle. Language academies such as the French Academy and the Esperanto Academy at least have a quasi-legislative power, but English-language prescriptivists lack even that. To sum up, there is no prescriptivist standard for the English language.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

I tend to use "I couldn't care less" because grammatically it adjusts to what I intend to say: "Since I don't care at all, it is impossible for me to care less." However, I hardly believe "I could care less" is indicative of one's intelligence. I have heard it used by a large amount of very educated people.


----------



## Forero

When I have heard "I could care less", it has always had the same peculiar intonation.  The word "care" is stressed at a rather high pitch, falling slightly for the "re", and then "less" is pronounced almost with two syllables, the first stressed at a pitch between that of "ca" and that of "re" and the second unstressed and quite a bit lower in pitch.

But "I couldn't care less" usually puts the stress on "could" with the pitch stepping down for "n't" and then "care".  "Less" is slightly stressed, with a pitch beginning a little higher than "care" and then falling off.

Does the intonation say something about the intended meaning?

Does "I could care less" mean "I don't even care enough to try to make sense"?

Does it mean "I could care less, if I were to care at all"?

Another expression that keeps the same meaning with or with "not" is "There is (not) but one of those in town."

I believe "sanctioned" has already been mentioned in this regard.  

And "irregardless".


----------



## mplsray

Forero said:


> When I have heard "I could care less", it has always had the same peculiar intonation. The word "care" is stressed at a rather high pitch, falling slightly for the "re", and then "less" is pronounced almost with two syllables, the first stressed at a pitch between that of "ca" and that of "re" and the second unstressed and quite a bit lower in pitch.
> 
> But "I couldn't care less" usually puts the stress on "could" with the pitch stepping down for "n't" and then "care". "Less" is slightly stressed, with a pitch beginning a little higher than "care" and then falling off.
> 
> Does the intonation say something about the intended meaning?
> 
> Does "I could care less" mean "I don't even care enough to try to make sense"?
> 
> Does it mean "I could care less, if I were to care at all"?
> 
> Another expression that keeps the same meaning with or with "not" is "There is (not) but one of those in town."
> 
> I believe "sanctioned" has already been mentioned in this regard.
> 
> And "irregardless".


 
Michael Quinion on his World Wide Words Web site has an article "I could care less" in which he refers to the matter of differing intonation. He cites Stephen Pinker who wrote in his book _The Language Instinct _that the pattern of stress in _I could care less_ reminded him of some uses of stress in Yiddish and New York Jewish speech to turn a phrase into its ironic opposite: "Perhaps the best known is _I should be so lucky!_, in which the real sense is often 'I have no hope of being so lucky', a closely similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning."

I am unpersuaded that there was ever an inversion of meaning at all, much less that sarcasm was involved, so I have to reject Pinker's interpretation. I think the change in stress occurred simply because _-n't_ was dropped from the expression, that is, for reasons of phonology. I don't think this particular aspect of the alteration even has anything to do with the negative polarity of the word _less._


----------



## Arrius

*Is the use of "I could care less" disputed among speakers of AE*?

Never heard of it till now, but there is also "_I should care_" with negative connotations, with primary stress on the _I _and secondary stress on the _care_: probably an Americanism too, but so well established that even I use it.


----------



## JeffJo

JamesM said:


> Honestly, the sarcasm of the "could care less" version escapes me. ...



Well, there are others whom it doesn't escape.  Perhaps there's a tendency to overcomplicate the remark.


----------



## Forero

mplsray said:


> Michael Quinion on his World Wide Words Web site has an article "I could care less" in which he refers to the matter of differing intonation. He cites Stephen Pinker who wrote in his book _The Language Instinct _that the pattern of stress in _I could care less_ reminded him of some uses of stress in Yiddish and New York Jewish speech to turn a phrase into its ironic opposite: "Perhaps the best known is _I should be so lucky!_, in which the real sense is often 'I have no hope of being so lucky', a closely similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning."
> 
> I am unpersuaded that there was ever an inversion of meaning at all, much less that sarcasm was involved, so I have to reject Pinker's interpretation. I think the change in stress occurred simply because _-n't_ was dropped from the expression, that is, for reasons of phonology. I don't think this particular aspect of the alteration even has anything to do with the negative polarity of the word _less._



Interesting.  The Yiddish intonation is quite different, almost like a question, or at least an ellipsis, and with the stress backed up from its natural place.  In "I should be so lucky" as I have heard it, the primary stress is on "be", and "be so lucky" is an almost even high pitch with "y" higher (as for "," or "?").

In the normal pattern, dropping "n't" would not normally change the stress, since "n't" was not stressed anyway and all the parts of speech stay the same.

The commonality may just be that the stress pattern is unusual.



Arrius said:


> *Is the use of "I could care less" disputed among speakers of AE*?
> 
> Never heard of it till now, but there is also "_I should care_" with negative connotations, with primary stress on the _I _and secondary stress on the _care_: probably an Americanism too, but so well established that even I use it.



That stress pattern makes sense, like "As if I should care" but with "as if" elided.  Could also be "And you think I should care."

So I could buy "I could care less" with that same intonation.

The "I could care less" intonation is more like "You c'n (just) kiss my grits", where the intonation means "I don't care a hoot about what you think even if you were to kiss my grits."

Shiver me timbers!  That could be the interpretation we've been looking for:

"I could care less." = "I don't care a hoot about what you think even if I were to (be able to) care less."


----------



## heretohelp

'I could care less' is sarcastic.


----------



## mplsray

heretohelp said:


> 'I could care less' is sarcastic.


 
There is a serious argument that _I could care less_ began as an ironic/sarcastic variation of _I couldn't care less,_ but there are simpler explanations which are more likely.

More importantly, however, there is not the slightest reason to believe that anyone who now uses _I could care less_ does so with an ironic/sarcastic intention. It appears to be used in exactly the sort of circumstances where _I couldn't care less_ is used, and other expressions can be substituted in such situations as well. So even if I_ could care less_ did in fact begin as an ironic/sarcastic usage that can't be used to justify its use now--such a justification, in any case, would be an example of the etymological fallacy. Whether it is now acceptable depends entirely upon usage: Do standard speakers use it? In the US, they do, while in the UK it is very rarely used by standard speakers.

I'd like to point out something which may or may not have been mentioned earlier in this thread. _I couldn't care less/I could care less_ can is used in a friendly manner, not just in a negative manner. A man might tell his girlfriend, for example, _I could care less that you're divorced_ with completely positive intention.


----------



## NileQT87

Imagine the words "even" or "actually" were added into the phrase.

"I could even/actually care less" meaning "I care so little that I could care even less about it than I do now", not meaning he cares more, but actually less.

"I could care less" doesn't have to mean that "I will care less" about it as in this will absolutely occur with certainty, but just that "I could". It's not actually saying that you are caring less. It could mean that you care so little that you might as well care even less than you do already.

As for: "You can't have your cake and eat it too", it simply means, "You can't have one thing, yet maintain the other." For example: "You can't screw around with a mistress, and have a healthy marriage, too." It means that you get "one or the other", "you can't have both" or "it's not a two-way street."


----------



## JamesM

NileQT87 said:


> Imagine the words "even" or "actually" were added into the phrase.
> 
> "I could even/actually care less" meaning "I care so little that I could care even less about it than I do now", not meaning he cares more, but actually less.


 
I can certainly accept that some people have learned one and not another and that each is entitled to his or her own preference, but as a logical argument this doesn't make sense to me.

"So... that I could..." in any comparative context, in my opinion, would sound odd:

"I was so low that I could go even lower." ???
"I was so tired that I could walk even farther." ???
"I was so happy that I could even be happier." ???
"I was so mad that I could be even madder." ???

To me, these make as little sense as "I cared so little that I could care even less". To, "I was so ____ that" automatically sets up an expectation for me that the person has reached the ultimate point in that experience:

"I was so low that I couldn't possibly go any lower." 
"I was so tired that I couldn't take one more step." 
"I was so happy that I couldn't have been any happier." 
"I was so mad that I couldn't have been any madder." 

As a result, "I ____ so much/little that I couldn't ____ more/less" makes sense to me, but "I ____ so much/little that I could ____ more/less" just doesn't. It strikes me as a misuse of the structure.

As someone said long ago in this thread, it's not a preference that's susceptible to logic, although each "side" of the argument thinks that logic is on their side.  I don't really expect this to sway anyone's opinion. 

- James


----------



## NileQT87

Ok, I messed up on that phrase. How about just plain "I could care less than I do already and it wouldn't matter, because I don't care", meaning with the modicum of care that I can actually muster for the situation, that I might as well even care less about it or not at all. It really is meant with some sarcasm involved. There's a bit of a "whatever" element to it's usage. It's like you already care about as little as it is possible to not care, but you sarcastically could care even less than that.

"I couldn't care less" actually sounds stilted to my ears. Too proper. It just doesn't have the vernacular sarcastic edge. It's not as edgy and harsh to my ears. It sounds posh. "I could care less" actually has an irrelevant sound, which actually expresses the mood of what it means even more.

Frankly, I think it's just sarcasm. A lot of American phrases are meant sarcastic and a lot of AE speakers have a bit more of that edge. We are a rather laid back, casual people for the most part. Also remember that we have a very strong middle-class personality, rather than a proper one.

It could have very well been an accent thing from a foreign language or some such. For example: "Long time, no see" isn't proper English, but rather "Chinglish" (Chinese-English). And the previous person who mentioned that "I should care less" was Yiddish. And of course the Scottish immigrants that greatly influenced some of the accents in the southern United States ("y'all" and "ain't" being its most famous regionalisms--"thang" and the "-in'" suffix are others). It wasn't just poor blacks either. It was also the main accent of most Southerners at one point in time. It has only dissipated because of people's adamant obsession with correcting them and television promoting more of the California  (Hollywood and Los Angeles) regionalisms and accent. California English is actually probably the "standard" in the U.S. now. Though California has plenty of terrible English expressions. My dad always picks on "small little".

And then there's the hip language that morphed from the Valley Girl era. Shows like "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" actually had books written on its progressive use of the English language. Most famously the use of inaccurate suffixes or phrases like "what's the sitch?" (situation) and "morbid much?". Some of them even take some thinking even for someone who is young and lives in California! Like: "pos!", "neg!" and "negly!" for "positive!", "negative" and "negatively!" It's a perfect example of California's tendency towards playful, but grammatically improper language. Then there are the bizarre words that are permanently stuck in those "groovy" retro times.

It would be pointless to make sense out of how "groovy" has something to do with being hip, rather than having grooves. "Gnarly" and "tubular" are other great examples. You aren't supposed to make sense of them.

When a British person uses the word "bloody" (more amusing than rude to American ears), you aren't saying that something is physically dripping with blood, are you?

American vernacular is an always changing, often absurd and playful language. But don't think that British and Australian English are without their phrases that don't make a ton of literal sense.


----------



## JamesM

NileQT87 said:


> Ok, I messed up on that phrase. How about just plain "I could care less", meaning with the modicum of care that I can actually muster for the situation, that I might as well even care less about it or not at all.
> 
> Frankly, I think it's just sarcasm. A lot of American phrases are meant sarcastic and a lot of AE speakers have a bit more of that edge. We are a rather laid back, casual people for the most part. Also remember that we have a very strong middle-class personality, rather than a proper one.


 
I'm American.    To me, sarcasm requires a certain cleverness or wit in order to "fly."  Using a phrase lamely doesn't strike me as having that "punch" that good sarcasm has.  If it's sarcasm, it's a low-grade version of it, in my opinion.  

Many things that get labeled as sarcasm don't hold up well under inspection.  I think it's a label that's too easily slapped on things sometimes to cover a lack of thought.

Anything can be said in a sarcastic tone.  That doesn't mean that the words themselves contain any sarcasm.


----------



## Loob

Not that I want to start this debate up again

But it's interesting (to me at least) that the equivalence between "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less" is evidently a topic of academic research and debate.

Here's one linguist's take on it.


----------



## cuchuflete

Moderator note:

Now that this thread has been bumped back into view, for good cause, I ask that any future contributors take the trouble to read the previous 95 posts before commenting.
It is possible that new contributions will add something that has been overlooked.  It is more likely that new contributions will not repeat what has been said before if the entire thread is reviewed before writing.


Stepping out of moderator costume...

Thanks Loob.  Interesting article.


----------



## Rana_pipiens

I grew up using the form "I couldn't care less." I never even heard "I could care less" until I was about 19, and then it seemed I never heard anything but.  The suddenness and completeness of the changeover make me suspect a televised source. (TV's abrupt and universal introduction of peculiar idioms can be crazy-making to someone who doesn't watch TV.)


----------



## cuchuflete

Rana_pipiens said:


> I grew up using the form "I couldn't care less." I never even heard "I could care less" until I was about 19, and then it seemed I never heard anything but.  *The suddenness and completeness of the changeover make me suspect a televised source.* (TV's abrupt and universal introduction of peculiar idioms can be crazy-making to someone who doesn't watch TV.)


_emphasis added

_Post #18 puts your etymological speculation in doubt.  There may also be some regional factors that brought about the sudden and complete changeover you witnessed.  In the northeastern U.S. the two forms continue to co-exist.


----------



## mplsray

cuchuflete said:


> _emphasis added_
> 
> Post #18 puts your etymological speculation in doubt. There may also be some regional factors that brought about the sudden and complete changeover you witnessed. In the northeastern U.S. the two forms continue to co-exist.


 
Post #18 must be put into question, however, because written evidence does not support it. Michael Quinion, in his discussion at the matter here, says that the earliest written example he could find of "I couldn't care less" is 1946 and of "I could care less" is 1966. I have not seen any scholar point to an earlier date for either version.


----------



## LV4-26

I haven't been entirely convinced by the argument that "I could care less" would be ironic. 

On the other hand, it would be extremely tempting (for me, at least) to attribute the birth of "_I could care less_" to a collision betwen two different expressions. 
I mean, that's how it often happens. I know a couple of examples of that in French, in which two expressions end up being mixed, generating a third one that sounds illogical (or, if you like, that seems to alter the meaning intended).

One would be "I couldn't care less"
The other would be "*I could care more*".

_I could care more_ is something I'd be very likely to say, as an understatement, meaning I could care far far far more...As a matter of fact, I don't care at all.

Unfortunately, _I could care more_ doesn't seem to be a set phrase. There's no evidence of that (17,000 google hits is not enough). Or is it that it's long been replaced by "I could care less"?

Back to "I could care less", can you people confirm whether I have correctly figured out the irony? 
The idea is "I could care less.....but I don't, actually". Right?


----------



## cuchuflete

mplsray said:


> Post #18 must be put into question, however, because written evidence does not support it. Michael Quinion, in his discussion at the matter here, says that the earliest written example he could find of "I couldn't care less" is 1946 and of "I could care less" is 1966. I have not seen any scholar point to an earlier date for either version.



I am no scholar, but I'm happy to point to earlier citations:


http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0508A&L=ADS-L&P=14942


> This Morning . . . With Shirley Povich
> > Washington Post, Sep 25, 1955, p. C1/1
> > The National League clubs have always shied from pitching left-handers
> > against the Dodgers, but Casey Stengel *could care less* about the
> > Dodgers’ reputation for beating southpaws.


I asked for early citations on an etymology board, and this was posted:



> NewsPaperArchive has the “couldn’t” version as early as March of 1944 in the Northern Ireland edition of the Stars and Stripes. That’s not definitive, of course, just what’s in NPA’s database.


source

More 1950s usage of the _could care_ version:



> FWIW, I first heard "I could care less" in 1959, when I was in the
> >> Army. ... I soon discovered that this
> >> locution was used *throughout* the Army, both here and overseas, by
> >> soldiers of all ethnic and racial backgrounds, regardless of rank.
> >> [...] It was stereotypical to the point
> >> of being jargon. *Nobody anywhere* used "I _couldn't_ care less" under
> >> *any* circumstances. [...] already in everyday use at every post
> >> that I was assigned to before I got there, as ubiquitous as "GI."
> >>[...] whatever its origin, it had been in use in the
> >> military probably for several years prior to 1959, if anyone cares.


source


----------



## mplsray

LV4-26 said:


> I haven't been entirely convinced by the argument that "I could care less" would be ironic.
> ...[C]an you people confirm whether I have correctly figured out the irony?
> The idea is "I could care less.....but I don't, actually". Right?


 
That's the irony which is being alleged, yes. I don't believe it originated that way--see the link given by Loob in a recent post for more likely explanations--nor do I think it is used ironically today except in very rare circumstances--in fact, I'd consider such a use to be quite eccentric. Most of the time, "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less" are used with the same meaning: "I don't care," no subtle variation in meaning being involved.


----------



## JulianStuart

There is an interesting (to me, at least) parallel with this thread, about I miss Xing vs. I miss not Xing where the conclusion was that the meaning was the same.  The logic of "I can't care less than zero" is unassailable, but the origin of the "other" phrase has eluded me.  Having seen it from a distance (through the "logic" in the other thread) I noticed the parallel - a very minor eureka moment for me, a tiny step for mankind 


 In the "I could care less" phrasing, the "less" carries all the necessary sentiment implying how little caring is happening, with less implying small magnitude, rather than non-zero.


----------



## chepe jones

It's definitely a change to the UK phrase that evolved in the US. But whether the shift was accidental or purposeful is not at all clear from anything I have read.


----------



## mplsray

mplsray said:


> That's the irony which is being alleged, yes. I don't believe it originated that way--see the link given by Loob in a recent post for more likely explanations--nor do I think it is used ironically today except in very rare circumstances--in fact, I'd consider such a use to be quite eccentric. Most of the time, "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less" are used with the same meaning: "I don't care," no subtle variation in meaning being involved.



I just came across a relatively new entry (September 15, 2014) in a blog at Dictionary.com: Word Fact: I Couldn’t Care Less vs. I Could Care Less. Among other things, it mentions the possibility that "I could care less" "emerged as a sarcastic variant employing Yiddish humor." However, it knocks down that and other supposedly logical arguments right away, saying:



> The argument of logic falls apart when you consider the fact that both these phrases are idioms. In English, along with other languages, idioms are not required to follow logic, and to point out the lack of logic in one idiom and not _all_ idioms is…illogical.



It then go on to point out that the Dictionary.com site includes both idioms.

I'm including this for the sake of completeness, given that the entry is a new one.


----------



## PaulQ

It appears that 'authorities' are still as torn on the two versions as we are here, which probably makes WRF an 'authority.' 

Grammar Girl, on the website "Quick and Dirty Tips"  offers the information that "I couldn't care less" originated in Britain and appeared in the US a decade later[1]. 

The site adds that Stephen Pinker agrees that "I could care less" [which appeared in the US in the 1960s] is a sarcastic variant. Grammar Girl states





> Regardless of the reason people say they could care less, it is one of the more common language peeves because of its illogical nature. [...] Stick with "I couldn't care less" [...] Here's an example from the TV show Psych:
> 
> _Juliet O'Hara: Guess what today is.
> 
> Carlton Lassiter: It's not one of those touchy-feely holidays invented by card companies to goad me into buying a present for someone I couldn't care less about, is it?_



[1] Google BE Ngram -> CLICK, Google AE Ngram -> CLICK


----------



## koper2

<Added to this thread. Nat, Moderator>

_Not that I have any issue with them, but I could care less what they do_.

Is the sentence above grammatical?


----------



## much_rice

Grammatical? Who knows. Idiomatic? Yes.

You will hear native speakers say "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" interchangeably. The meaning is always, "I don't care."


----------



## lingobingo

koper2 said:


> _Not that I have any issue with them, but I could care less what they do_.
> 
> Is the sentence above grammatical?


It just reads like a misunderstanding/misuse of the expression “*I couldn’t care less*” (I don’t care at all about something) — which literally means I care so little that it would be impossible for me to care any less than I do. 

I can’t see how it makes any sense as I could care less.


----------



## The pianist

lingobingo said:


> It just reads like a misunderstanding/misuse of the expression “*I couldn’t care less*” (I don’t care at all about something) — which literally means I care so little that it would be impossible for me to care any less than I do.
> 
> I can’t see how it makes any sense as I could care less.


 Good answer!
"I could care less" is the exact opposite of what they intend to say.  You will most likely hear it among the *dumb* Americans.


----------



## 2PieRad

I _could _care less, but I don't care enough to even try.  

But yes, you'll hear both.


----------



## lingobingo

Not in the UK, though. At least, I’ve never heard it.


----------



## User With No Name

The pianist said:


> You will most likely hear it among the *dumb* Americans.


I say it that way regularly.

And I am not dumb.

Grow up.


----------



## dojibear

koper2 said:


> _Not that I have any issue with them, but I could care less what they do_.
> Is the sentence above grammatical?


"I could care less" is very common in US speech, where it means "I could *not *care less".
In other words, it is sarcasm. This phrase is *always* sarcasm. Are you using a grammar
that explains the syntax for sarcasm? If so, the grammar will explain this sentence.

But it doesn't matter. This phrase is very common. Therefore it is correct. If a grammar calls it incorrect, the grammar is wrong.
Grammars *explain* a language. Grammars do not *define* a language.

If you ask "is it grammatical?" I will reply "according to which grammar's set of rules?" Grammars are each different.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

dojibear said:


> "I could care less" is very common in US speech, where it means "I could *not *care less".
> In other words, it is sarcasm. This phrase is *always* sarcasm.



I don't think it is "sarcasm" at all.  I think it is the same sort of thoughtless parroting of what people think they hear that leads my boss at work to speak of _nipping things in the butt_, rather than_ in the bud_.  Anyone who actually thinks about what he or she is saying will choose "_I *couldn't* care less."_


----------



## much_rice

User With No Name said:


> I say it that way regularly.
> 
> And I am not dumb.
> 
> Grow up.


I'm glad I wasn't the only one   .


----------



## much_rice

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> Anyone who actually thinks about what he or she is saying will choose "_I *couldn't* care less."_


But some of us who think about what we say give a lot of thought to the wonderful illogic of the English language. I'm not one for enforcing rules, so I don't mind that we disagree on this forum. But if I ever say "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse" please don't shoot one for me. It's just English.


----------

