Just saw this film on ThisTV and was looking forward to rewatching one of my favorite scenes, when she walks in on her boyfriend and Lydia doing the Benny and the Jets. The editing was so severe that all the drama and humour was lost, stupid US censorship, sex/nudity (even implied) bad, bullet riddled bodies OK.
I, too, just saw that scene,
I thought it was funny when Helen's first words to her caught red-handed cheating boyfriend were, "I thought you didn't like Elton John?"
Not having seen the film before, I am left to wonder what was omitted?
**********************************************
Ye Olde Sig Line:
It should be "I can NOT care less."
You are at the lowest level of caring.
I just want to say thank you layton 59 for your sig. It annoys the hell out of me when people say, "I could care less"!! Dumbasses, that means you CARE, otherwise it would be impossible to care less.
sharei'm watching this on THIS right now, and they actually blurred out a nude statue in jeanne tripplehorn's apartment. a statue!
utterly ridiculous!
It's a colloquialism that EVERYBODY knows the meaning to. It's also a sarcastic and ironic statement that implies the opposite of what it says. I am the most logic-oriented person that I know (I oftentimes use to a fault) and even I realize that logic is not necessary in assigning meaning to words and phrases.
shareNot really a "colloquialism", but rather poor communication skills. We may know what they mean, but we also know what some foreigner with no English skills means, even when he butchers the language beyond recognition. The fact that we can understand them, does not say anything positive about the way they butcher the language.
shareIt's absolutely a colloquialism. A phrase used in informal or non literal communication; or a saying that expresses something other than the literal meaning of the words it contains.
Colloquialisms do sometimes contain incorrect definitions and improper grammar, but that isn't to say that theit meanings aren't commonly understood in everyday speech. People who complain about this are just being pedantic ass hats.
Colloquialism as a word is used to define a type of INFORMAL communication that is used by people, and which as such may or may not be perfectly proper grammatically. Notice - informal, not "exact opposite of intended meaning".
So, no, colloquialism, it is not.
To say "I am doing good" can be considered colloquialism. Not grammatically perfect, but meaning is not lost.
To say to a doctor "I am doing great" when you are dying of fever is an error in communication, not colloquialism.
Incorrect. You're reading things into the definition that aren't there.
Your doctor analogy is *beep* because "I'm doing great" is not a common, generally acceptable way of saying you're feeling bad. However, "could care less" IS a common, generally acceptable and certainly understood way of saying that you don't care about something. Hence a colloquialism.
My doctor analogy was an example of bad communication. When bad communication is accepted by the masses, it does not become correct or anything of value, except perhaps as a tool in writing funny screenplays.
"I could care less", means exactly that, and it is not common. It may be common in your circles, but that still would not make it correct. It is still much more common to say "I could not care less".
I heard a few kids say "I always give up" when they meant "I never give up". If enough kids say it, does "always" start meaning "never"? No. It is simply wrong.
It's absolutely common in everyday parlance. That's why it's consequently so common to encounter smart-ass douches like you constantly correcting people.
TL;DR you're wrong,I'm right,deal with it.
And the low-life egoistic troll comes to the surface.
Thanks for projecting yourself.
In case anyone else is listening, here are some thoughts by others, about this "colloquial" phrase:
Harper's dictionary of contemporary Usage says that "I could care less" is:
"an ignorant debasement of the language".
Isaac Asimov said about it: "I don't know people stupid enough to say this."
The explanation, by those who defend it, is that "could care less" is somehow ironic, and that's where it gets its opposite meaning from - from the irony. Like "Oh, I just love western country music to pieces!" when I mean exact opposite.
However, no one has ever heard even a trace of irony in that phrase "I could care less".
Finally, most linguists agree that "could care less" comes from slurred speach and parroting phrases uttered by others, with no real understanding of what is being said. Too many "d's" and "t's" close together got gobbled up and resulted in a shortened phrase that happens to have an exact opposite meaning of the intended one.
So, there you have it. Colloquialism is "kid" instead of "child", or even "long time no see" rather than "haven't seen you in a while", but "I care" when I mean "I don't care" is not colloquialism, it is simply uninformed, or thoughtless and wrong, even when used informally.
Similarly, "I could off..." instead of "I could have" is wrong, as much as it is used "colloquially". It is simply wrong, but less so than "I could care less" because the meaning can still be obtained, even though the original phrase is butchered.
Last but not least, every informal phrase has an intended meaning and the user is aware of both its intended meaning and how to use it. When a user believes they are using a phrase and using it correctly, with no awareness of the original phrase or its true meaning, than the user is simply - ignorant and the phrase they use under such conditions is - wrong.
To say or write on IMDB "Long time no see" while meaning "I haven't seen you in a long time" and be aware that the phrase really comes from Chenglish and carries a bit of a fun element with it, is perfectly fine, especially because it does not bring up any misunderstanding.
But to say "I could care less" while NOT being aware that you really meant "I couldn't care less" and being perfectly certain that you just communicated "I don't care at all, not even a tiny bit" and then wondering why the other party is not really sure of what you meant is simply wrong.
Phrases, street language, colloquialisms all come from the necessity to communicate more efficiently, not to misguide the person you are talking to. When a phrase does exactly that, and is only understood by equally misguided or ignorant user, then it is wrong.
Perhaps the litmus test is this: is the person who is using a popular phrase aware of its intended meaning AND proper usage?
- I ain't got no time for arguments.
vs
- I don't have time for arguments.
Most people know that the bottom version is correct but also all people understand either phrases well. Even if someone uses the double-negative version, and was asked about it, in all likelihood they will know that what they said was not perfect, but is perfectly well understood. Such "wrong" uses are OK, because we know clearly what they mean.
But using a phrase which is outright confusing, and only accepted in certain circles (usually teens in the USA, and rarely anyplace else), and above all - with no awareness of its true meaning is an entirely different story.
I can recount many instances in which I was not sure what was meant by "I could care less" because it did not have the tone of "I could not care less". I also know many native English speakers being equally puzzled in similar situations.
Figures of speech, including colloquialisms, are often born from linguistic corruption. That's just a fact of life. Just because it is grammatically and logically incorrect doesn't make it any less of a colloquial expression. Do you want to use it in formal speech or writing? Of course not. But in the everyday vernacular it's not the sin that asses like you pretend. Nearly EVERYBODY knows the message being conveyed. There is no misleading or misunderstanding going on. When someone hears "I could care less" they understand the message perfectly.
Egotistical troll? Nope, just a truth-teller.
If you were a true teller, you'd be admitting that many people do NOT understand what "I could care less" means exactly.
Ask anyone from UK, and see what they say. Then post what you found out.
I have seen no evidence anytime or anywhere of those who do not understand aside from, perhaps, children.
shareExactly. Open your eyes and ears, and you will be surprised what you have missed.
shareIf you would open your eyes and ears you would be aware of and understand the many explanations, defenses, and justifications of the phrase.
shareSo you would like me to open my eyes before you open yours?
What "many explanations, defenses, and justifications of phrase" are you referring to, when all you offered is "I say this is a colloquialism and it is so because I say so" and did not even try to rebuff what I said about grammatical or errors in communication NOT being colloquialisms.
There are colloquialisms and there are errors. When many people make the same error, that does NOT automatically make it a colloquialism.
"I could off"... is not colloquialism.
"Their better off then me." is not colloquialism.
"She made a 360 degree turn" is not colloquialism.
"I could care less" is not colloquialism.
But they all do have one thing in common: the low standard of the speaker who is using such phrases. Colloquialism has a purpose: it simplifies sometimes complex rules of the language. Errors are errors precisely because they do nothing to simplify or improve communication - they are confusing and make the listener stop and think to make sure they get the exact meaning that the speaker intended but missed.
Colloquialisms and so-called errors aren't mutually exclusive. The definition of the term is simply an informal, commonly used figure of speech. Could care less absolutely qualifies. Deal with it. There are in fact many other robust defenses of the term that are easily located with a simple Google search. If you're actually interested in broadening your knowledge thend i leave it up to you to take the 5 seconds to research them.
Logic doesn't mean much in language since definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive which is how we end up with such a wealth of nonsensical idioms. If you want a fantastic example of logic not meaning much and an error becoming correct then read the Merriam Webster definition of literally. Might want to duct tape your head together first to keep it from exploding.
"Deal with it." - nothing like a popular but empty phrase when you run out of arguments.
Colloquialisms and errors do exclude each other. How? Because colloquialism is ACCEPTED as a manner of speech. When I say "Long time no see", we know where and how that phrase entered English language, and we accept it as a weird but fun and functional way to say something.
When you say "wlerkjelrkej" and you wanted to say "how are you", you made an error.
Yes, they are exclusive.
Logic does mean much in language, otherwise I could post this, and expect you to answer it:
"What is faster or a train?"
or how about:
"This sentence is untrue".
If that makes logical sense, you have a much bigger problem than English language.
I am aware of the problems with the word "Literally" for much longer than this thread existed. And that word is STILL very easy to understand even if used improperly; it is much easier to understand than "I could care less".
When we think about "I literally died when I saw Taylor Swift", we know exactly what that teeny-bopper meant. Even if the meaning of the word is "wrong", it is still clear, because if she really died, she would not be here to write about it. It does not take too much brain power to understand that the meaning behind "literally" is a gross exaggeration, to the point of being funny, which can all be gathered from the tone of the communication. So - wrong example.
Similarly, everybody knows what is meant by the term "could care less." Literally everybody.
And no, logic doesn't necessarily mean much. It's important for forming the baseline of a language and the general rules of the grammatical structure, but when the language evolves, logic sometimes goes out the window, particularly once you venture into the realm of idioms. This is how we arrive at such peculiarities as "fill out" and "fill in" having identical meanings despite being logically opposite.
If the improper use of literal has gained acceptance, as evidenced by its dictionary entry, then there is no reason why could care less necessitates any less acceptance. Just because YOU don't accept it doesn't mean that it isn't accepted in general.
So yes, this is something that you're just going to learn to deal with, as trite as that may sound.
You are making blanket statements with nothing to back them up.
To say "literally everyone knows what 'could care less' means", bespeaks arrogance, if not narcissism; you cannot know possibly what EVERYONE thinks. Not to mention an even bigger issue: it is easy to prove that there are many people who get confused when told such nonsense; I am one of them.
And your statements about logic are equally terrible. Obviously, logic is not your strong point otherwise, all the proof I have supplied in this thread would be more than enough to make you at least re-think your reasoning. But you are not defending a "reason" but rather a position (what you consider "reason" is an illusion, such as "everyone knows..."). You could also claim that earth is flat and there would be nothing anyone could do; you could also claim that "everyone knows that earth is flat", and be certain about it. And there are people like that out there.
Your post is hilarious considering you JUST ADMITTED the figurative use of the word literal. And nothing to back my statements up? It's called the dictionary, son. It supports my argument and thus defeats yours.
shareDoctorNordo, since I don't have time to read your silly posts, I will reply just this one more time.
This discussion was about use of "I could care less" statement. It was not about the colloquial meaning of the word "literal" or "literally". The two are unrelated, and have no similarity in meaning, or usage.
Got that?
Now, if I agree that "literal" can be used outside of its literal meaning (forgive the pun), that says nothing about the meaning of "I could care less".
Do you see the difference?
let me illustrate it to you in a different, more obvious manner:
If I agree that I am typing this in English, such a statement will do nothing to prove what language was used in a Swedish film. Get it?
And as for "dictionary, son", I will disregard your poor attempt at being patronizing, and say that Dictionaries are not meant to judge use of language, they merely RECORD IT! That includes offensive words, racial slurs, stupidities and so on. If you called someone a "n.....", it would be BAD, even if its included in a dictionary. But people will use it no matter what. Besides, I already posted what a dictionary has to say about it, and here it is again:
Harper's dictionary of contemporary Usage says that "I could care less" is:
"an ignorant debasement of the language". Notice it does not refer to it as "colloquialism" but "debasement". Quite a difference.
Dictionary or not, this particular expression "Could care less" has been discussed and pondered by many people, and I have given you plenty of links to read them for yourself. Do people use it? Yes, and that is recorded in dictionaries, movies, articles and so on. Does it make sense? No it does not. Does it work perhaps as a cynical statement? No, because those who use it, do so out of ignorance, NOT their sense of humor.
And so on...
I've given you plenty to think about, and you managed to miss all my points, and are even trying to use them against me. For instance, I already posted here what a dictionary has to say about "could care less" but you ignored that, and tried to remind me to read a dictionary. Are you even reading my posts, or just posting and hoping for more attention?
In the end, I will have to excuse myself from this discussion. Whatever else you post here has already been answered before.
The sheer stupidity you display with each and every post is truly entertaining, and for that I thank you.
This discussion was about use of "I could care less" statement. It was not about the colloquial meaning of the word "literal" or "literally". The two are unrelated.
And as for "dictionary, son", I will disregard your poor attempt at being patronizing, and say that Dictionaries are not meant to judge use of language, they merely RECORD IT! That includes offensive words, racial slurs, stupidities and so on. If you called someone a "n.....", it would be BAD, even if its included in a dictionary. But people will use it no matter what. Besides, I already posted what a dictionary has to say about it, and here it is again:
Does it make sense? No it does not.
In the end, I will have to excuse myself from this discussion.
Whatever else you post here has already been answered before.
It is similar to the saying 'a near miss' when referring to two objects that barely miss. Usually what people mean is 'a near hit'. A near miss is a collision.
"Wow those two planes collided" "Yes, but they nearly missed".
Another Carlin observation.
A 'near miss' means, it was near, but it missed -phew! You know, when you ducked your head, just in time before the football smacked you in the face!? (Other flying objects are also available)
'I could care less' means you care.
'I couldn't care less' means you don't give a flying fart; your care level is at zero.
And as far as US censorship is concerned...
Go on... guess!