So, thejeff, since usage determines correctness and nothing is wrong, why aren't you posting in leet-speak? It's obviously inconvenient for you to have to use capitals and spaces and whole words and so on, and lots of kids use leet-speak to get around that -- and since it doesn't matter how much effort the reader needs to expend to understand you anyway, why not?
So, thejeff, since usage determines correctness and nothing is wrong, why aren't you posting in leet-speak? It's obviously inconvenient for you to have to use capitals and spaces and whole words and so on, and lots of kids use leet-speak to get around that -- and since it doesn't matter how much effort the reader needs to expend to understand you anyway, why not?
1337 isn't designed around being easy. It's designed around being intentionally obtuse so that only people in the subculture can easily parse it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's designed around being intentionally obtuse so that only people in the subculture can easily parse it.
Kind of like "check your privilege!", then?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's designed around being intentionally obtuse so that only people in the subculture can easily parse it.Kind of like "check your privilege!", then?
Close to the opposite actually. "Check your privilege" originated in academic circles as a way of facilitating discussions by getting people to look at what bias they bring to the conversation. As those sociology majors left academia they brought their language with them and it confuses others, but it was designed with strict definitions to facilitate conversations in controlled environments.
1337 is designed as a barrier to entry to intentionally alienate people not already part of the group so that they could exclude. Asside from a handful of simple changes, it is mostly intentionally undefined.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So 1337-speak is modern day thieves' cant?
Fascinating...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So 1337-speak is modern day thieves' cant?
Fascinating...
accurate
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth noting that some people do grow up in, and fiercely maintain loyalty to, a subculture in which the purpose of communication is to reinforce social status, and never, ever to transmit information. More often, and in-group will obscure communication to outsiders (like the 1337 example above, apparently). Still other people are just too sloppy or too lazy to communicate clearly. And sometimes those groups and reasons overlap. You can't just assume the reason is always one or the other.
Incorrect use of idioms falls into a similar category. You never know whether the person just doesn't know the correct one, or is cleverly and sarcastically subverting the meaning, or just doesn't care, or is on some kind of crusade against the concept of clear communication. The last reason isn't always the real one, isn't even usually the real one, and can't be assumed to be the real one.
And any of those reasons are legit -- if the reader/listener knows which one it is. When they don't know which one, however, they're subject to potentially egregious miscommunication. When someone tells me to get the bag and snaps at me when I get the wrong one, I might assume they're asserting social dominance. However, maybe they're in a hurry and are thinking about six other things, and simply forgot to specify, and are snapping at me in response to their situational frustration rather than to "put me in my place." The appropriate response to the one thing is totally different from the appropriate response to the other.
The thing is, "could care less" isn't an idiom, it's just not bothering/ knowing the correct phrase; the one I've noticed gaining currency during my lifetime is saying "step foot" rather than "set foot." Both of those are just incorrect rather than idiomatic usage.
Idiomatic usage is when a phrase like "lost your marbles" moves from literal (that one's for you, Kirth /wink) meaning (children who lost the game and had to give their marbles to their opponents frequently threw tantrums) to figurative meaning (anyone who behaves erratically).
"Could care less" isn't an idiom; it's just dropping the contracted "not" from the phrase.
It's very tricky to talk about "wrong" when dealing with linguistics. Usage determines what's right and wrong. Something done wrong often enough for long enough becomes right.
Maybe 50 years isn't enough for "could care less". "Step foot" has been around since the 1500s, though it's apparently more common in the US since the 80s.
Well, if you recognize the difference between vernacular and proper usage (oh boy, am I going to hear about that; yes, I just claimed that everyone who doesn't speak in the way of which I approve is improper) then talking about incorrect usage is pretty easy.
For instance, one of the meanings of the word "set" is to place an object in a specified position, as in "I set my yo-yo on the windowsill." That's what you're unwilling to do with your foot when you won't set foot in a really skanky bar or wherever. So far as I know, "step" has never ever had that meaning, even back in the sixteenth century, so "step foot" has always been vernacular.
Pre-Post-Edit: Ninja'd by Kirth.
The thing is, "could care less" isn't an idiom, it's just not bothering/ knowing the correct phrase; the one I've noticed gaining currency during my lifetime is saying "step foot" rather than "set foot." Both of those are just incorrect rather than idiomatic usage.
Idiomatic usage is when a phrase like "lost your marbles" moves from literal (that one's for you, Kirth /wink) meaning (children who lost the game and had to give their marbles to their opponents frequently threw tantrums) to figurative meaning (anyone who behaves erratically).
"Could care less" isn't an idiom; it's just dropping the contracted "not" from the phrase.
Would you say that "could care less" has moved away from it's literal meaning and gained a figurative meaning?
Would you say that "could care less" has moved away from it's literal meaning and gained a figurative meaning?The thing is, "could care less" isn't an idiom, it's just not bothering/ knowing the correct phrase; the one I've noticed gaining currency during my lifetime is saying "step foot" rather than "set foot." Both of those are just incorrect rather than idiomatic usage.
Idiomatic usage is when a phrase like "lost your marbles" moves from literal (that one's for you, Kirth /wink) meaning (children who lost the game and had to give their marbles to their opponents frequently threw tantrums) to figurative meaning (anyone who behaves erratically).
"Could care less" isn't an idiom; it's just dropping the contracted "not" from the phrase.
It did that decades ago
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth noting that some people do grow up in, and fiercely maintain loyalty to, a subculture in which the purpose of communication is to reinforce social status, and never, ever to transmit information. More often, and in-group will obscure communication to outsiders (like the 1337 example above, apparently). Still other people are just too sloppy or too lazy to communicate clearly. And sometimes those groups and reasons overlap. You can't just assume the reason is always one or the other.
We've all probably experienced the guessing game where someone asks you what you want to eat, and you make a suggestion that they veto, and another, and another, and another, and this goes on until you correctly guess the one they're thinking, or you both starve. In this case, I think it's considered "impolite" to come right out and make a request; it's much more "gracious" to beat around the bush with silly games first. Or maybe they're too lazy to mentally run down a list of options, and just want you to do it for them. Or maybe you promised to take them to the new Indian place last week, and they're trying to remind you without outright calling you out on it. I know someone who will say "Go get the bag!" In her universe, a "bag" can be a backpack, a purse, a satchel, a paper lunch sack, the baby's diaper bag, a laptop carrying case, etc. -- and she will never use a specific term when a more vague general one exists. There are obviously much more efficient ways to get the correct bag, such as specifying which one, or getting it yourself. So is the purpose not to get the bag, but to reinforce that the person getting it is socially inferior to the person demanding it? (I think the fetcher is supposed to apologize to the speaker if they fail to read that person's mind, and thereby inadvertently grab the backpack instead of the satchel.) Then again, maybe that's all wrong. Maybe they're just too lazy to get the bag, and too lazy to specify. Or maybe some other reason. Some people point at something...
And yet despite this, meaning was conveyed accurately to most of the readers, and the only people complaining seem to be doing it out of pedantry
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would you say that "could care less" has moved away from it's literal meaning and gained a figurative meaning?The thing is, "could care less" isn't an idiom, it's just not bothering/ knowing the correct phrase; the one I've noticed gaining currency during my lifetime is saying "step foot" rather than "set foot." Both of those are just incorrect rather than idiomatic usage.
Idiomatic usage is when a phrase like "lost your marbles" moves from literal (that one's for you, Kirth /wink) meaning (children who lost the game and had to give their marbles to their opponents frequently threw tantrums) to figurative meaning (anyone who behaves erratically).
"Could care less" isn't an idiom; it's just dropping the contracted "not" from the phrase.
Call me a grammar nazi if you will, but no! Hell no!! I don't even think "step foot" has gotten there, and that one's been around for centuries!!!1111!!!!!
TheJeff is completely correct in pointing out that this didn't happen a piece of formal writing, but in a post on an internet discussion board. But (it's okay, Safire said you could start a sentence with "but" before he died) here on the internet, you really have to make an effort to make your sentences as comprehensible as possible. A lot of dialect, slang and vernacular depend on expression, gesture and tone, none of which are available when posting.
Speaking of correct usage, I'll totally mention that I have to fix autocorrect more than not, so trusting that junk won't help any.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that "correct speech" is also used to reinforce social status. Witness attacks on vernacular, slang and dialect pretty much everywhere.
Again, you're assuming a motive that may not be correct.
For example, I read a lot, and sometimes know words on a page, but don't actually know how to pronounce them. I actively ask my friends to correct me when I say stuff wrong, because it's a favor to me to help me get it right. You might immediately assume they're reinforcing social status, but you'd be dead wrong.
It's also worth reinforcing the point "pooh-poohed" above, that if a person knows the correct usage, he or she is empowered with a choice -- thereafter, they can use it correctly when circumstances call for that, or incorrectly among a peer group that expects that -- and they understand the difference. Someone who knows only one usage has none of that choice. Empowering doesn't have to take place in a classroom, if it failed to do so there.
And yet despite this, meaning was conveyed accurately to most of the readers, and the only people complaining seem to be doing it out of pedantry
And there you go, too, assuming clarity, and assuming a motivation. Almost as if you were too eager to refute anything I posted to actually look for the point in it. Or maybe you were just too lazy to read it at all. Or maybe you went through a comprehensive checklist of all possible motives and eliminated all other options, and polled everyone who read the previous posts to see if it was clear to them, too, and just aren't telling us you did all that work. Or maybe some other reason. All those are guesses, which are poor bases for assuming.
Is it really necessary for a climate change thread to go on for pages about leet speak and prescriptive vs descriptive linguistics?
We are almost 20 pages in on an off topic thread, what do you expect :)
I blame lateral gene transfer from the "On the Problems with Communication, Discourse, and Social Justice" thread
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I blame lateral gene transfer from the "On the Problems with Communication, Discourse, and Social Justice" thread
Dude, after a certain point, I wasn't entirely sure which of the two threads I was posting to, I just had something really important to say . . .
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I blame lateral gene transfer from the "On the Problems with Communication, Discourse, and Social Justice" thread
So you admit its genetic!
ow ow ow ow ow kidding ow ow ow ow hooves hurt ow ow ow ow
Note that "correct speech" is also used to reinforce social status. Witness attacks on vernacular, slang and dialect pretty much everywhere.Again, you're assuming a motive that may not be correct.
For example, I read a lot, and sometimes know words on a page, but don't actually know how to pronounce them. I actively ask my friends to correct me when I say stuff wrong, because it's a favor to me to help me get it right. You might immediately assume they're reinforcing social status, but you'd be dead wrong.
It's also worth reinforcing the point "pooh-poohed" above, that if a person knows the correct usage, he or she is empowered with a choice -- thereafter, they can use it correctly when circumstances call for that, or incorrectly among a peer group that expects that -- and they understand the difference. Someone who knows only one usage has none of that choice. Empowering doesn't have to take place in a classroom, if it failed to do so there.
I assumed nothing about motivation, particularly yours. It can be used for other motives certainly.
It absolutely is also used to reinforce social status. As I said originally.
Reinforces, or delineates?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I could care less" = don't care
Then
"I could eat" = not hungry?
"I could do that" = incapable?
"I could go for some steak" = anything but steak?
"I could help you out" = you're on your own?
I disagree that "could care less" has transcended from lazy mistake to linguistic legitimacy. The weight of "could" being used properly is still overwhelming.
"I could care less" = don't care
Then
"I could eat" = not hungry?
"I could do that" = incapable?
"I could go for some steak" = anything but steak?
"I could help you out" = you're on your own?I disagree that "could care less" has transcended from lazy mistake to linguistic legitimacy. The weight of "could" being used properly is still overwhelming.
And 50+ years of common usage disagrees
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would you say that "could care less" has moved away from it's literal meaning and gained a figurative meaning?The thing is, "could care less" isn't an idiom, it's just not bothering/ knowing the correct phrase; the one I've noticed gaining currency during my lifetime is saying "step foot" rather than "set foot." Both of those are just incorrect rather than idiomatic usage.
Idiomatic usage is when a phrase like "lost your marbles" moves from literal (that one's for you, Kirth /wink) meaning (children who lost the game and had to give their marbles to their opponents frequently threw tantrums) to figurative meaning (anyone who behaves erratically).
"Could care less" isn't an idiom; it's just dropping the contracted "not" from the phrase.
Call me a grammar nazi if you will, but no! Hell no!! I don't even think "step foot" has gotten there, and that one's been around for centuries!!!1111!!!!!
TheJeff is completely correct in pointing out that this didn't happen a piece of formal writing, but in a post on an internet discussion board. But (it's okay, Safire said you could start a sentence with "but" before he died) here on the internet, you really have to make an effort to make your sentences as comprehensible as possible. A lot of dialect, slang and vernacular depend on expression, gesture and tone, none of which are available when posting.
Speaking of correct usage, I'll totally mention that I have to fix autocorrect more than not, so trusting that junk won't help any.
The thing is that my "I could care less" statement wasn't misinterpreted. No one asked me "So, you do care about Al Gore?". The debate wasn't over the meaning of my statement, the debate is over whether or not I should have included a "n't".
The message was understood, therefore the message worked.
And 50+ years of common usage disagrees"I could care less" = don't care
Then
"I could eat" = not hungry?
"I could do that" = incapable?
"I could go for some steak" = anything but steak?
"I could help you out" = you're on your own?I disagree that "could care less" has transcended from lazy mistake to linguistic legitimacy. The weight of "could" being used properly is still overwhelming.
I'm head over heels for this. By that I mean standing upright.
I'm not saying you've accounted badly for yourself, but there just wouldn't have been any issue at all if you'd included the contraction.
I'm head over heels for this. By that I mean standing upright.And 50+ years of common usage disagrees"I could care less" = don't care
Then
"I could eat" = not hungry?
"I could do that" = incapable?
"I could go for some steak" = anything but steak?
"I could help you out" = you're on your own?I disagree that "could care less" has transcended from lazy mistake to linguistic legitimacy. The weight of "could" being used properly is still overwhelming.
I just looked this one up. Heels over head was saying for 250 years before head over heels variant started being used. After ~200 years of both being used, heels over head fell out of use during the Victorian era.
When did people start saying "ass over teakettle," though?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying you've accounted badly for yourself, but there just wouldn't have been any issue at all if you'd included the contraction.
But I don't like the contraction. I prefer the sarcasm, meter and emphasis in the contractionless version. It's more pleasing to me.
I dunno Iron, I guess I read it as if you put the emphasis on the wrong sylLABle or something. :P
When did people start saying "ass over teakettle," though?
Supposedly this is one of the first usages of "tail over teakettle".
But I don't like the contraction. I prefer the sarcasm, meter and emphasis in the contractionless version. It's more pleasing to me.
Exactly what I was saying about assumptions -- it's not that you don't know, it's that you have other reasons. Unfortunately, your usage didn't provide sufficient context for those reasons to be clear.
But I don't like the contraction. I prefer the sarcasm, meter and emphasis in the contractionless version. It's more pleasing to me.Exactly what I was saying about assumptions -- it's not that you don't know, it's that you have other reasons. Unfortunately, your usage didn't provide sufficient context for those reasons to be clear.
The thing is that my "I could care less" statement wasn't misinterpreted. No one asked me "So, you do care about Al Gore?". The debate wasn't over the meaning of my statement, the debate is over whether or not I should have included a "n't".
The message was understood, therefore the message worked.
Caineach, the full message obviously wasn't understood.
He meant, "I'm ignoring Al Gore, and I'm choosing to incorrectly use this idiom because that allows me to better express the full extent of the sarcasm I'm feeling, and also because it sounds snappier."
To some extent, he conveyed, "Herp, derp, dumb Al Gore, catch phrase."
In person, we'd have seen his sarcastic expression, heard his intonation, whatever -- his actual meaning would have likely been clear. But in writing, additional clarification is often needed.
In the first sense, or the second? I'm talking beyond just "could" means "couldn't" -- the stuff behind the post.
Caineach, the full message obviously wasn't understood.
He meant, "I'm ignoring Al Gore, and I'm choosing to incorrectly use this idiom because that allows me to better express the full extent of the sarcasm I'm feeling, and also because it sounds snappier."
To some extent, he conveyed, "Herp, derp, dumb Al Gore, catch phrase."
In person, we'd have seen his sarcastic expression, heard his intonation, whatever -- his actual meaning would have likely been clear. But in writing, additional clarification is often needed.
No one has responded to that post in a way where I felt they misunderstood what I was saying.
I was very unsure if you actually meant you cared about what Al Gore said. Then again, I am not an American.
Yep.
Well, it's no secret you were always far more perceptive than I. I got the second meaning from the post, but not the first.
I was very unsure if you actually meant you cared about what Al Gore said. Then again, I am not an American.I only care to the extent of pointing out that he didn't say it.
Example #7,913 of global warming denial being predicated on fiction.
So, whatever he has been claimed to have said, he didn't, and you're here to make sure everyone knows this?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, whatever he has been claimed to have said, he didn't, and you're here to make sure everyone knows this?
Topic of thread: Why are there conspiracy theories about human influenced climate change.
My answer: Because people spread false propaganda... like those claims that Al Gore said half the US would be under water and polar bears extinct by now.
So yes, I am in this thread to comment on the subject of the thread.
Go figure.
That was Ted Danson, iirc.
"The interior of the Earth is extremely hot, several million degrees."