In article , ellie
writes
    >>Should it not be "they could NOT care less about anything else?"
    >Well, yes, it should be. But it's an idiomatic expression that's been
    >around for ages. It probably started out as sarcasm. But, it's in the
    >language for better or worse. LAnguage is only "piecewise logical". ;

But why not correct it?
--
Marie Lewis

ellie wrote:
    > Marie Lewis wrote:
    > > Jim Morris writes

    > >> Actually, I think France is all about the OIL. They could care less about
    > >> anything else.

    > > Now there is an American expression that always puzzles me. Should it
    > > not be "they could NOT care less about anything else?"

    > Well, yes, it should be. But it's an idiomatic expression that's been
    > around for ages. It probably started out as sarcasm. But, it's in the
    > language for better or worse. LAnguage is only "piecewise logical". ;-)

I think "idiomatic" is too forgiving.

It is more of a "catch phrase"; something that some people have heard
and therefore use themselves. It is most commonly used by people who
do not bother to think about what they are actually saying or writing.


--
greg byshenk - [email protected] - Leiden, NL
hate spam?

"Desmond Coughlan" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > { hobart's newbie top-posting tidied up }
    > le Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:23:18 +0100, dans l'article
, hobart xaxinojo
a dit ...
    > >> >Actually, I think France is all about the OIL. They could care less
    > >> >about anything else.
    > >> Now there is an American expression that always puzzles me. Should
it
    > >> not be "they could NOT care less about anything else?"
    > > no
    > Yes. To say, 'They could care less about anything else', means that it is
    > possible for them to care less. Ergo, they care.
    > The correct expression is 'they couldn't care less'.
    > --
    > Desmond Coughlan
    > desmond @ zeouane.org
    > http: // www . zeouane . org


You might want to also critique another incorrect expression Americans use.
"I could give a f--k."

Ryan

le Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:17:30 -0500, dans l'article , Ryan B a dit ...

{ snip }

    >> The correct expression is 'they couldn't care less'.

    > You might want to also critique another incorrect expression Americans use.
    > "I could give a f--k."

Well that all depends on who's saying it, doesn't it ? Teri Hatcher, or
Elisha Cuthbert could say it to me all they like ... but Joan Rivers or
Hilary Clinton ? :-(

--
Desmond Coughlan
desmond @ zeouane.org
http: // www . zeouane . org

Marie Lewis wrote:
    > hobart xaxinojo writes
    >> "Marie Lewis" wrote:
    >>>> Actually, I think France is all about the OIL. They could care less
    >>>> about anything else.
    >>> Now there is an American expression that always puzzles me. Should it
    >>> not be "they could NOT care less about anything else?"
    >> no
    > Then it is illogical.

Perhaps I am being too charitable, but I think Hobart is making a play on
the double negative.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

    > > If you believe that France is on the moral high ground on this issue,
    > > just take a look at History.
    > Actually, I think France is all about the OIL. They could care less
    > about anything else. While the US position has much more to do with
    > Saddam's past/current behavior and the weapons he has, and what he
    > could do with them.

By the way, the correct expression is "could not care less". Think
about it.

Actually, according to PBS Frontline, the US position has a lot to
do with the #2 man in the defense department, who has wanted to
go after Saddam for 12 years. 'W' himself admitted in one of his
speeches that he wanted to go after Saddam because Saddam tried
to kill his dad.

As for oil, we'll see if, by some strange coincidence, American and
British oil companies somehow end up with the Iraq oil contracts
after the war.

    > Anyone with half a brain and any type of knowledge about this would
    > know that a War with Saddam will do more to damage America's
    > Economic/Oil interest than good. A War will cost Billions/Trillions and
    > much of Iraq's Oil infrastructure will be damaged.

Yes, 'W' has no clue of the economic cost. Did you note that his
budget did not include ANY funds for the upcoming war? How
disingenuous of him!

Viktor

le Sat, 22 Feb 2003 20:56:24 GMT, dans l'article , Viktor a dit ...

    >> > Actually, I think France is all about the OIL. They could care less
    >> > about anything else.

    >> Now there is an American expression that always puzzles me. Should it
    >> not be "they could NOT care less about anything else?"

    > Yes, that is the correct expression. This is just another side-effect of
    > the broken American education system.



--
Desmond Coughlan
desmond @ zeouane.org
http: // www . zeouane . org

    > > Actually, I think France is all about the OIL. They could care less
    > > about anything else.
    > Now there is an American expression that always puzzles me.
    > Should it not be "they could NOT care less about anything else?"

Yes, that is the correct expression. This is just another side-effect
of the broken American education system.

Viktor

Marie Lewis wrote:
    >
    > In article , Jim Morris
    > writes
    > >Actually, I think France is all about the OIL. They could care less about
    > >anything else.
    > Now there is an American expression that always puzzles me. Should it
    > not be "they could NOT care less about anything else?"

Yes, it should - and that's how many of us say it. Originally it was
only semi-literate adolescents who used "could" for "could not" (or more
likely, simply swallowed the final "n't" of "couldn't" until it got lost
entirely). Unfortunately, linguistic habits die hard.

    >
    > --
    > Marie Lewis

Desmond Coughlan wrote:
    >
    > { hobart's newbie top-posting tidied up }
    >
    > le Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:23:18 +0100, dans l'article , hobart xaxinojo a dit ...
    >
    > >> >Actually, I think France is all about the OIL. They could care less
    > >> >about anything else.
    >
    > >> Now there is an American expression that always puzzles me. Should it
    > >> not be "they could NOT care less about anything else?"
    >
    > > no
    >
    > Yes. To say, 'They could care less about anything else', means that it is
    > possible for them to care less. Ergo, they care.
    >
    > The correct expression is 'they couldn't care less'.

It was first used by American teen-agers (not notorious for their
precise diction). In the course of repetition, the final two consonants
(being largely unpronounced) simply got dropped. (FWIW, many of us stil
say "couldn't" when we use the phrase.)

    >
    > --
    > Desmond Coughlan
    > desmond @ zeouane.org
    > http: // www . zeouane . org

Ryan B wrote:
    >
    > "Desmond Coughlan" wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > { hobart's newbie top-posting tidied up }
    > >
    > > le Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:23:18 +0100, dans l'article
    > , hobart xaxinojo
    > a dit ...
    > >
    > > >> >Actually, I think France is all about the OIL. They could care less
    > > >> >about anything else.
    > >
    > > >> Now there is an American expression that always puzzles me. Should
    > it
    > > >> not be "they could NOT care less about anything else?"
    > >
    > > > no
    > >
    > > Yes. To say, 'They could care less about anything else', means that it is
    > > possible for them to care less. Ergo, they care.
    > >
    > > The correct expression is 'they couldn't care less'.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Desmond Coughlan
    > > desmond @ zeouane.org
    > > http: // www . zeouane . org
    >
    > You might want to also critique another incorrect expression Americans use.
    > "I could give a f--k."

(When some of them so plainly could not, lacking the manhood to do so!)

    >
    > Ryan

Miguel Cruz wrote:
    >
    > Marie Lewis wrote:
    > > hobart xaxinojo writes
    > >> "Marie Lewis" wrote:
    > >>>> Actually, I think France is all about the OIL. They could care less
    > >>>> about anything else.
    > >>>
    > >>> Now there is an American expression that always puzzles me. Should it
    > >>> not be "they could NOT care less about anything else?"
    > >>
    > >> no
    > >
    > > Then it is illogical.
    >
    > Perhaps I am being too charitable, but I think Hobart is making a play on
    > the double negative.

You are being even MORE overly charitable if you assume "hobart" is
capable of logical reasoning!

Viktor wrote:
    >
    > > > If you believe that France is on the moral high ground on this issue,
    > > > just take a look at History.
    > >
    > > Actually, I think France is all about the OIL. They could care less
    > > about anything else. While the US position has much more to do with
    > > Saddam's past/current behavior and the weapons he has, and what he
    > > could do with them.
    >
    > By the way, the correct expression is "could not care less". Think
    > about it.
    >
    > Actually, according to PBS Frontline, the US position has a lot to
    > do with the #2 man in the defense department, who has wanted to
    > go after Saddam for 12 years. 'W' himself admitted in one of his
    > speeches that he wanted to go after Saddam because Saddam tried
    > to kill his dad.
    >
    > As for oil, we'll see if, by some strange coincidence, American and
    > British oil companies somehow end up with the Iraq oil contracts
    > after the war.
    >
    > > Anyone with half a brain and any type of knowledge about this would
    > > know that a War with Saddam will do more to damage America's
    > > Economic/Oil interest than good. A War will cost Billions/Trillions and
    > > much of Iraq's Oil infrastructure will be damaged.
    >
    > Yes, 'W' has no clue of the economic cost. Did you note that his
    > budget did not include ANY funds for the upcoming war? How
    > disingenuous of him!

Well, anyone who can "propose" all sorts of expensive blue sky
legislation, along with an enormous cut in any taxes that might fund it,
is obviously "arithmetically challenged"! (As Ross Perot was so fond of
saying: "They don't know how to keep books in Washington"!)


    >
    > Viktor

    > >>Should it not be "they could NOT care less about anything else?"
    > >
    > >Well, yes, it should be. But it's an idiomatic expression that's been
    > >around for ages. It probably started out as sarcasm. But, it's in the
    > >language for better or worse. LAnguage is only "piecewise logical". ;
    > But why not correct it?

At the risk of sounding like a snob, I will disagree with the middle
poster. That expression has not been around for ages, but I suspect
it has been around as long as him. I never heard this expression
until the late 1980s. IMHO it started because kids were ignorant
of the meaning (witness another poster's pathetic attempt to tell us
that it uses correct grammar and logic). One never hears educated
people on television using it, only the young and young at heart (or
would that be, young at brain?). I doubt if it started out as sarcasm.
It is no different than the misuse of its/it's, your/you're, and lose/
loose. Language is only piecemeal logical? Hardly. Language is
the means by which we communicate.

Viktor

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

    > You are being even MORE overly charitable if you assume "hobart" is
    > capable of logical reasoning!

I think you and "hobart" make quite the nifty "pair", Evelyn ;--)

--
Best
Greg