Language fails that make you angry

[ImaLooser]

Every Christmas season, I have to bite my tongue when Pollack's jewelry commercials come on the air. The owner pronounces it "joolery" and he insists on making his own commercials.

Do Detroit ads still talk about "lugjury" cars? Spewacious.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I read a history book that mentioned "they were loosing the battle."

It seems to have affected you very deeply.

 

[russ_watters]

People don't seem to realize that most of these errors are typos, not evidence of poor grammar.

I doubt it. I don't think I have ever seen any variant other than "your" used incorrectly. I'm pretty sure that means "your" is substituted for all similar uses.

 

[Andre]

My pants are looser too.

 

[Curious3141]

I disagree.

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/care.html

You may disagree, but that source you sited is hardly what I would call authoritative.

First of all, the quote from the American Heritage Dictionary (which is the only part of that page that I would pay heed to) did not decry the use of "could care less". It merely stated that the two versions are being used more or less equally. Hardly a denouncement. Stating that they are antonyms (when taken literally) is neither here nor there. At no point was the use of "could care less" explicitly discouraged.

Furthermore, that guy himself is confused. This part in bold, for instance :

“I could care less” just isn’t logically ironic. The people speaking feel irony, but their words don’t convey it. “I’d buy those jeans” could be ironic if you really meant the opposite: you wouldn’t buy those jeans if they were the last pair in the world. But “I could care less” isn’t used to imply its opposite: that you care more. Thus it is not ironic.

is just plain muddled nonsense. The literal opposite of "I could care less" is not "I could care more" but "I couldn't care less". That perfectly fits what he seems to consider to be acceptable as irony.

The rest of the article pretty much just states an opinion (about the impact of the alternative phrasing). Opinions don't mean squat (by which, of course, I ironically intended to mean that they *do* mean squat).

One of the linked references is far more even-handed in its treatment: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm This paragraph pretty much sums up all that need be said on the subject:

In these cases people have tried to apply logic, and it has failed them. Attempts to be logical about I could care less also fail. Taken literally, if one could care less, then one must care at least a little, which is obviously the opposite of what is meant. It is so clearly logical nonsense that to condemn it for being so (as some commentators have done) misses the point. The intent is obviously sarcastic — the speaker is really saying, “As if there was something in the world that I care less about”.

There may be aspects to language that we personally object to, but the fact remains that English is a living, thriving language that is constantly evolving. We get to split infinitives and use "who" and "whom" interchangeably in speech - things that would've blanched the faces of the literati barely a century ago. Heck, I don't like the American spelling of many words (which makes it especially ironic that I'm defending an idiosyncrasy of American origin here), but I accept that these spellings have become mainstream.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The literal opposite of "I could care less" is not "I could care more" but "I couldn't care less".

No. The literal opposite of "I could care less" is "I could not care less".

 

[Curious3141]

Anyone that says "could care less" on purpose, knowing it's wrong (are there really any?) don't realize what they're actually saying. There is no irony, it's just plain wrong and so makes the speaker sound silly.

Again, this is just your opinion. There are many expressions in common usage that don't withstand literal logical scrutiny, but we use them anyway. Even the phrasing you prefer, "I couldn't care less", is strictly illogical because it's almost vanishingly unlikely that the speaker is being accurate about caring less about the topic of conversation than *anything else* in the entire Universe. For one thing, there are many things that the speaker is actually not consciously considering at the time. It's easy to make the argument that by expressing a strong opinion, even a disdainful one, about the subject under discussion, the speaker is showing he cares more about the subject than all those things he's not consciously thinking about right then.

So the statement is inaccurate if taken literally. But we accept it because it's just another trope - in this case, it's obvious hyperbole.

Now which speaker sounds silly?

 

[Curious3141]

No. The literal opposite of "I could care less" is "I could not care less".

"Couldn't" is just a contraction of the same. Duh. I was going for pithiness, which is why I didn't bother to explain that.

 

[Curious3141]

I think Curious meant that some people are saying it wrong on purpose.

Essentially yes. But even if someone uttering the phrase hasn't consciously reflected on the semantic structure (which is a fool's errand in any case, as I explained), it doesn't change the fact that most people understand exactly what is intended. And that's really the point of language - communication.

 

[ImaLooser]

It seems to have affected you very deeply.

Yeah. I think it started watching the Smothers Brothers. The tattoo artists tells Pat Paulsen, "there you go buddy! Born Too Loose."

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What's the opposite of "I could have less than two living biological parents."

 

[fuzzyfelt]

The demise of adverbs is dreadful bad, or not. :)

 

[Evo]

Again, this is just your opinion. There are many expressions in common usage that don't withstand literal logical scrutiny, but we use them anyway. Even the phrasing you prefer, "I couldn't care less", is strictly illogical because it's almost vanishingly unlikely that the speaker is being accurate about caring less about the topic of conversation than *anything else* in the entire Universe. For one thing, there are many things that the speaker is actually not consciously considering at the time. It's easy to make the argument that by expressing a strong opinion, even a disdainful one, about the subject under discussion, the speaker is showing he cares more about the subject than all those things he's not consciously thinking about right then.

So the statement is inaccurate if taken literally. But we accept it because it's just another trope - in this case, it's obvious hyperbole.

Now which speaker sounds silly?

No, what you're saying doesn't make sense (or you hang out with really odd people). When you use the phrase "I couldn't care less", it's always about something specific, as in "I couldn't care less about your hat". I guess you could say that you couldn't care less about anything in the universe, but I've never heard anyone say that.

The phrase is a mistake, like people that say "should of" instead of "should've" or "should have". And then there is "you don't half to like it".

You youngun's be destroying our language.

 

[Dembadon]

... it doesn't change the fact that most people understand exactly what is intended. And that's really the point of language - communication.

"Intention" is contextually derived. Without context, we would have to rely on logical inference, in which case "I don't care" is not the only valid inference from "I could care less." But then the exercise becomes more intellectual than colloquial.

Since most of the thread has been about taking a more intellectual approach to analyzing communication, then it almost goes without saying that most of us already understand the point you've been trying to make since nobody is claiming that inaccurate constructions make things impossible to understand.

 

[Fredrik]

I doubt it. I don't think I have ever seen any variant other than "your" used incorrectly. I'm pretty sure that means "your" is substituted for all similar uses.

I have the same problem with those words. I understand their meanings perfectly, but when I need to type "you're", my brain imagines the sound of it and sometimes has my fingers type "your". If I'm more alert than usual I'll see that I've typed the wrong word as I'm typing the next few words. If I'm careful, I'll catch the mistakes in proof reading. I have a feeling that people who post comments to youtube videos or whatever aren't exactly doing a lot of proof reading.

I'm having issues with all words that sound like another word. If you ever see me make a too/to/two mistake, this is the reason.

 

[Fredrik]

I'm a perfectionist. To me, rules are rules, and I will follow them to the best of my ability. Note that I usually won't obnoxiously correct someone unless I'm deliberately trying to irritate a family member or a close friend. It is just a fairly minor annoyance.

I hear you. I'm usually like that too, but this is a rule that I dislike so much that I'd rather not follow it. I consider English without that rule to be an improvement of English with that rule.

 

[vela]

-After getting into the habit of not ending sentences with prepositions, people doing the opposite has started to annoy me. People mixing up pronouns gets on my nerves as well. However, doing these when speaking is more excusable than doing them when writing.

I'm a perfectionist. To me, rules are rules, and I will follow them to the best of my ability. Note that I usually won't obnoxiously correct someone unless I'm deliberately trying to irritate a family member or a close friend. It is just a fairly minor annoyance.

I think Fredrik's point was that this so-called rule isn't really a rule, just like the prohibition against split infinitives is BS.

 

[vela]

I have the same problem with those words. I understand their meanings perfectly, but when I need to type "you're", my brain imagines the sound of it and sometimes has my fingers type "your". If I'm more alert than usual I'll see that I've typed the wrong word as I'm typing the next few words. If I'm careful, I'll catch the mistakes in proof reading. I have a feeling that people who post comments to youtube videos or whatever aren't exactly doing a lot of proof reading.

I've wondered if this sort of thing might explain the trouble some people have with spelling and grammar. Those whose brains work visually would tend to see its and it's as distinct. It doesn't matter that they're pronounced the same way; they're different combinations of characters. Those who process language aurally, on the other hand, confuse the two because they sound the same.

 

[AlephZero]

After getting into the habit of not ending sentences with prepositions, people doing the opposite has started to annoy me.

THe best reply to somebody who tries to "correct" prepositions at the end of sentences is

"This is pedantry of a type up with which I will not put".

The technical term is "hypercorrection" - or "if it ain't broke, keep fixing it till it is".

 

[FreeMitya]

I think Fredrik's point was that this so-called rule isn't really a rule, just like the prohibition against split infinitives is BS.

I would agree in the context of spoken English and informal writing (which is why I said it was more excusable in such contexts), but I've never seen a good writer or editor omit it in formal writing, at least, not that I remember. Still, I adhere to it in all contexts if only because I'm a hopeless traditionalist.

P.S. Just in case it's necessary to clarify this, I boldfaced the text.

 

[FreeMitya]

THe best reply to somebody who tries to "correct" prepositions at the end of sentences is

"This is pedantry of a type up with which I will not put".

The technical term is "hypercorrection" - or "if it ain't broke, keep fixing it till it is".

There are other ways to phrase that statement e.g. "I will not put up with this type of pedantry." However, it's difficult to rephrase "With whom are you going to the store?" which certainly sounds better than "Whom are you going to the store with?"

 

[vela]

How would you rewrite "The region was fought over"?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

How would you rewrite "The region was fought over"?

The two sides came to an agreement.

 

[FreeMitya]

How would you rewrite "The region was fought over"?

"This is a region over which a battle was fought." I had to add words to that, but that doesn't necessarily mean the initial statement was better either stylistically or grammatically. Another option is "A battle was fought over this region," which is closer to the original structure, but still avoids placing the preposition at the end.

Whether one considers it a rule or not, one must admit that ending it with a preposition makes a sentence weak. Strong sentences should generally end with a noun, verb, or adjective, for example.

 

[Evo]

THe best reply to somebody who tries to "correct" prepositions at the end of sentences is

"This is pedantry of a type up with which I will not put".

The technical term is "hypercorrection" - or "if it ain't broke, keep fixing it till it is".

My third grade teacher drilled in the fact that we were NEVER to end a sentence with a proposition.

I get that many sentences really do not need a prepostion at the end. "Where did you go to?" is simpler as "Where did you go?"

But I realize now that there are times when ending with a preposition is ok.

 

[FreeMitya]

My third grade teacher drilled in the fact that we were NEVER to end a sentance with a proposition. But when I write grammatically correct sentences, I've been told I sound shakespearian.

I COULD CARE LESS!

After some research I discovered that this is more debated than I initially thought.

For the sake of a "second" opinion, Alexander Pope said:

This is an idiom, which our language is strongly inclined to: it prevails in common conversations, and suits very well with the familiar style in writing: but the placing of the preposition before the relative, is more graceful, as well as more perspicuous; and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated style.

This was taken from my copy of "The New Fowler's Modern English Usage". Yes, I am a nerd.

 

[Galteeth]

After some research I discovered that this is more debated than I initially thought.

For the sake of a "second" opinion, Alexander Pope said:


This was taken from my copy of "The New Fowler's Modern English Usage". Yes, I am a nerd.

For the purposes of writing fiction however, often subtle "breaking" of the rules of language in ways that are commonly used can differentiate the speech of characters and establish different tones for different speakers.

 

[FreeMitya]

For the purposes of writing fiction however, often subtle "breaking" of the rules of language in ways that are commonly used can differentiate the speech of characters and establish different tones for different speakers.

Certainly. Here's an excerpt from The Sound and the Fury:

When the shadow of the sash appeared on the curtains it was between seven and eight o' clock and then I was in time again, hearing the watch. It was Grandfather's and when Father gave it to me he said I give you the mausoleum of all hope and desire; it's rather excruciating-ly apt that you will use it to gain the reducto absurdum of all human experience which can fit your individual needs no better than it fitted his or his father's.

Though it is not, in my experience, a common error, "reducto absurdum" is obviously incorrect. In an edition of Reading Faulkner: Glossary and Commentary devoted the The Sound and the Fury, Stephen M. Ross/Noel Polk had this to say about the error:

The incorrect phrasing may be a joke on either Mr. Compson's or Quentin's part; or, along with the hyphen in "excruciating-ly," the mis-stated Latin could hint that Quentin remembers Mr. Compson as drunk when he speaks and thus not in full command of his words. It unlikely an error on Faulkner's part.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=hW5...=onepage&q=faulkner reductio absurdum&f=false

 

[nazarbaz]

Je parle anglais comme une vache espagnole... I talk english like a spanish cow, would say the french... If you ever meet my posts and you find my wording and my grammatical structures wrong or weird, this is normal... I learned it trying to decipher Frank Zappa lyrics and I'm still learning... The cult of "correctness" has its adverse effects though... In France, they have a very old institution in charge of defending the right "usage" of language, l'Académie française... An assembly of very old writers and intellectuals who earn very confortable wages for it... They are called the immortals and they issue a volume of their dictionary once every 10 years or so... Still stuck on the letter M or N after decades of work... Sweet or mad people, I don't know...

 

[Fredrik]

How would you rewrite "The region was fought over"?

"This is a region over which a battle was fought."

How would you rewrite "I screwed up"?