Little editing/grammar mistakes that drive you up the wall

[SlyReaper]

I like "I could care less" as a form of understatement similar to "I'm not a huge fan" meaning "I don't like that at all."

How do you figure it's an understatement? Its intended meaning is the exact opposite of its literal meaning. It's not an understatement, it's a lie. By saying you could care less, you're saying that you do in fact care at least a little bit, so there's room to be able to care less about it. If you do not care at all, then you couldn't care less. It's impossible to be at a level of caring below "not caring at all", so you couldn't care less.

But whatever, carry on butchering this wonderful language of ours. I could care less.

[Iulus Cofield]

But whatever, carry on butchering this wonderful language of ours. I could care less.

If there were a fora Hall of Fame, I would put your post in it for it's delicious irony. It even had levels to the irony. Bravo, sir, bravo.

[Derek]

I always saw it as something of a threat. "[Person obviously not caring]: You think I don't care now? Wait until you see me really not caring!" Keep in mind this was the interpretation of a < 10 year old.

Regardless, the intended meaning is always quite clear, and that's what matters. I do always try to remember to say "I could care less" though, just to spite people who complain about it.

[mojacardave]

When I hear 'I could care less', my brain hears it as a question. I think it's an automatic defence to prevent myself from biting a hole through my tongue. I take it as a slang abbreviation of:

'And you think I could care less?'

[goofy]

Its intended meaning is the exact opposite of its literal meaning.

Its meaning is not deducible from its constituent parts, but you can say that for a lot of language. Idioms like kick the bucket, drive up the wall, have nothing to do with their literal meaning.

Anyway there are some English constructions where the presence or absence of negation doesn't change the meaning.

[SlyReaper]

Its intended meaning is the exact opposite of its literal meaning.

Its meaning is not deducible from its constituent parts,

Yes it can. See the post at the top of this page. "Couldn't care less" means you're at the minimum possible level of caring. "Could care less" means that there do in fact exist levels of caring below that which you currently hold, but the intended meaning is that you don't care at all.

but you can say that for a lot of language. Idioms like kick the bucket, drive up the wall, have nothing to do with their literal meaning.

At least they don't mean the opposite of their literal meaning.

Anyway there are some English constructions where the presence or absence of negation doesn't change the meaning.

I'll give you that one. If "could care less" riles me up so much, those other constructions should too. The first two examples are a comparison between a negative and a double negative. Double negatives in English tend to means the same thing as the single negative form even if they're logically incorrect. I tend to give double negatives a free pass these days, but really, 2 means the opposite of its literal meaning. Example 3 is where the word "not" has been discarded. Again, taken literally, it would be interpreted to mean the opposite. The 4th example is actually interesting because even logcially, they mean the same thing. "I wonder if we can", "I wonder if we can't". Both are wondering whether it's possible to do something. I see no problem with that one. Example 5a is a clumsy construction. It makes a statement, and then follows it by saying "I don't think". Taken literally, it would be taken as "here is statement A, but I don't agree with it". It means the opposite of what is intended, just like "could care less".

[gmalivuk]

Something can't "mean the opposite of what's intended" when you clearly know what's intended. What it means is what is intended, along with what you understand from the utterance.

I do always try to remember to say "I could care less" though, just to spite people who complain about it.

Likewise.

[goofy]

At least they don't mean the opposite of their literal meaning.

Why is having the opposite meaning so important? Anyway, there are lots of words which contain two meanings that are opposite to each other: cleave, dust, trim, sanction, ravel etc.

As gmalivuk says, what is intended is what is meant. How else are we to determine what utterances mean, other than by examining how they are used?

[ShootTheChicken]

This isn't 100% what this thread is for I don't think, but I'ma throw it here:

It kind of drives me crazy when people say 'Exception that proves the rule' as if that's some sort of bulletproof argument, but I recently read The Mother Tongue by Bill Bryson and he suggests the phrase originated when 'prove' was more akin to 'test, and therefore the expression is actually 'Exception which tests the rule' which... makes a lot of sense.

[diabolo]

At least they don't mean the opposite of their literal meaning.

Why is having the opposite meaning so important? Anyway, there are lots of words which contain two meanings that are opposite to each other: cleave, dust, trim, sanction, ravel etc.

As gmalivuk says, what is intended is what is meant. How else are we to determine what utterances mean, other than by examining how they are used?

I'm not a linguist, not even a native speaker of English, but I think the driving up the wall factor here is more of a "how the fuck did we allow this to become widely accepted?" rather than not understanding it.
We have two versions that are both equally correct and understood as idioms, and differ only by a negation, except one also makes perfect sense on a logical level and the other doesn't at all.
Omitting the negation doesn't add anything to the idiom while it somehow shows that you don't know/understand/care about logic or the language itself (at least that's how I see it), that should be enough to piss people off.
I don't really see any difference between this and all the its/it's, their/there/they're, ... Is it ok for me to say "I'm board" for "I'm bored"? because, obviously, I'm not a piece of wood and it's perfectly clear what I mean.

[goofy]

Omitting the negation doesn't add anything to the idiom while it somehow shows that you don't know/understand/care about logic or the language itself (at least that's how I see it), that should be enough to piss people off.

Well, logic is irrelevant. Language is not logic and there's no reason we should expect it to behave logically. I don't get the "caring about the language" argument. English isn't dying, it's getting more speakers every day. Whether or not we care about English, nothing's going to happen to it that hasn't been happening to language for thousands of years.

I don't really see any difference between this and all the its/it's, their/there/they're, ... Is it ok for me to say "I'm board" for "I'm bored"? because, obviously, I'm not a piece of wood and it's perfectly clear what I mean.

But you just said that both "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less" are equally correct. It's not the same as "board" for "bored" at all. The former is an idiom and the latter is a spelling mistake.

[mojacardave]

This isn't 100% what this thread is for I don't think, but I'ma throw it here:

It kind of drives me crazy when people say 'Exception that proves the rule' as if that's some sort of bulletproof argument, but I recently read The Mother Tongue by Bill Bryson and he suggests the phrase originated when 'prove' was more akin to 'test, and therefore the expression is actually 'Exception which tests the rule' which... makes a lot of sense.

'Exception that proves the rule' is a tongue in cheek way of showing that a certain rule isn't perfect. If I ever heard anybody seriously use that phrase in an attempt to increase the strength of an argument, I think I might commit homicide.

[gmalivuk]

"Exception that proves the rule" is a number of different things.

[diabolo]

Omitting the negation doesn't add anything to the idiom while it somehow shows that you don't know/understand/care about logic or the language itself (at least that's how I see it), that should be enough to piss people off.

Well, logic is irrelevant. Language is not logic and there's no reason we should expect it to behave logically. I don't get the "caring about the language" argument. English isn't dying, it's getting more speakers every day. Whether or not we care about English, nothing's going to happen to it that hasn't been happening to language for thousands of years.

I don't really see any difference between this and all the its/it's, their/there/they're, ... Is it ok for me to say "I'm board" for "I'm bored"? because, obviously, I'm not a piece of wood and it's perfectly clear what I mean.

But you just said that both "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less" are equally correct. It's not the same as "board" for "bored" at all. The former is an idiom and the latter is a spelling mistake.

If it was up to me they wouldn't be equally correct, but apparently they are, I don't like it but I'm willing to trust you and the others on this.
But then how come they indeed are? I would suspect that the original form is "I couldn't care less", and it wasn't an idiom a the time, it just meant that, and then at some point people who couldn't tell the difference between there exists and for all started to use "I could care less" instead to express the same idea.

If you forget you ever heard them anywhere "I couldn't care less" means that you care more about any and every other possible matter, that is, you give the absolute minimum fuck (ie. none) about the one being discussed. "I could care less" implies there exists some matters you care less about, but how many? 1? an infinity? it only rules out the minimum value and leaves the rest of the space of possibilities wide open, it just says "yeah I have an opinion on this but I'm not telling you what it is".
"I could care less" doesn't mean what it's generally intended to unless you look at it as an idiom and understand it's "I couldn't care less" with the negation dropped for whatever reason.
That's what I meant by "caring about the language" (I admit it wasn't exactly clear), if you have a bit of curiosity and stop for a second to think about it instead of just repeating the idiom (because, you know, it's interesting to know how things work), you can see that there's a non idiomatic form that is immediately obvious and differs only by a single negation, why not use that?

I'm with you on the spelling mistake in "I'm board", but my point was why couldn't it (or any other spelling mistake) become accepted as meaning something it originally doesn't, just like idioms?
I'm sure we could find a majority of people who are perfectly fine with it. Then what? It becomes magically correct, we stop being bothered by it, change our minds, and start using it exclusively (just to spite people who complain about it, as someone put it earlier in the thread)?
I agree it's not the same thing but it seems to me like it would work the same way, just rearranging letters instead of words.

[gmalivuk]

I'm sure we could find a majority of people who are perfectly fine with it. Then what? It becomes magically correct

Yes. Spellings do, in fact, sometimes change. Sometimes they change, in fact, precisely because there is already a word that sounds similar. Avocado, for example.

we stop being bothered by it, change our minds, and start using it exclusively

No, not necessarily. Those are all matters of taste, which need not be based on how other people use a word.

[goofy]

"I could care less" doesn't mean what it's generally intended to unless you look at it as an idiom and understand it's "I couldn't care less" with the negation dropped for whatever reason.

Actually, I assumed it just meant something like "I could care less, but I don't."

That's what I meant by "caring about the language" (I admit it wasn't exactly clear), if you have a bit of curiosity and stop for a second to think about it instead of just repeating the idiom (because, you know, it's interesting to know how things work), you can see that there's a non idiomatic form that is immediately obvious and differs only by a single negation, why not use that?

I think it's much more interesting that both phrases have the same meaning, even tho one is negated and the other is not. What does that say about how language works?

[diabolo]

I think it's much more interesting that both phrases have the same meaning, even tho one is negated and the other is not. What does that say about how language works?

That's it's too confusing for me! I guess that also makes it way more interesting for the rest of you who know what you're talking about.

[Monika]

In German, there is a phrase somewhat like that. "alle ... bis auf den letzten" can mean "all except for the last" or "all including the last".

PS: My husband just looked over my shoulder and said he finds your lego rabbit supercute.

[mojacardave]

"Exception that proves the rule" is a number of different things.

Ah yes - that link shows exactly what I mean. I like the Jocular Nonsense form, but the Serious Nonsense form would induce rage... I'd argue that the Loose Rhetorical meaning of the word was pretty much always the same thing as Jocular or Serious Nonsense though. It's rare to see the other two forms nowadays - or at least, when you do see them, they aren't referred to by the phrase 'exception proves the rule'.

[Felstaff]

It's rare to see the other two forms nowadays

They are the exceptions that prove the rule "the exception proves the rule"

[SlyReaper]

I originally thought it was a contraction of "The exception that improves the rule". That is, you've found a counter-example to the rule, but instead of throwing that rule away, it can be modified (improved) to accomodate your new observations.

[Arnvidr]

Most annoying mistakes: its/it's and your/you're mix ups.

And the word whinging to mean whining makes me cringe.

[ShootTheChicken]

I love whinging.

[Derek]

I'll second "whinging' being an awful word. Just drop the first 'g' and it's so much better.

[Lazar]

It's a matter of dialect. "Whinge" is British English, "whine" is American English.

[Iulus Cofield]

How is it pronounced?

[jaap]

It's a matter of dialect. "Whinge" is British English, "whine" is American English.

How is it pronounced?

It rhymes with hinge.

[AvatarIII]

i never thought whinging and whining were the same thing before, i think of whining as slightly higher pitched, almost crying, and whinging to have a bit more grumble in it, closer to a groan,

[Felstaff]

It's predominantly spelled "whingeing" in British English. Seeing as it's a British colloquialism, there's rarely a need to spell it whinging, which is an American standard of spelling. We like to keep the E in, for clarity.

My dress is singing!

Why, what singed it?

[AvatarIII]

It's predominantly spelled "whingeing" in British English. Seeing as it's a British colloquialism, there's rarely a need to spell it whinging, which is an American standard of spelling. We like to keep the E in, for clarity.

My dress is singing!

Why, what singed it?

interestingly

Both forms of English vary for tinge and twinge; both prefer cringing, hinging, lunging, syringing.

i would have assumed whinge whould form similarly to hinge, cringe and syringe, without the e in the -ing form.

i'm not doubting you, it's just our stupid language is stupid.

[Felstaff]

See, I'd personally shoot for hingeing over hinging, but unhinging over unhingeing. Perhaps it's to do with what letter/s come before -ingeing/-inging. If it's monomoraic (h-inge, s-inge, t-inge, wh-inge) then having hinging/singing/tinging/whinging would make it look more like it rhymes with singing/pinging/ringing/bringing. If it's bimoraic or polysyllabic (syr-inge, infr-inge, unh-inge) then the word looks obvious enough to dispense with the silent E to be understandable enough to read without jarring the flow of the reader's eye, and looks a little more aesthetically pleasing as well.

[ShootTheChicken]

Whine is just too commonplace in Canada and suggests more of a child complaining and moaning about something.

Grown men whinge. It's got more oomph.

[Derek]

But whin[g]ing is childish moaning. That's that point!

Grown men suck it up like grown men.

[ShootTheChicken]

No, grown men whinge about taxes and child support.

[Derek]

That's complaining!

But seriously, whining (and by corollary, whinging) to me mean inherently annoying and excessive. There is no kind of whining that is ok. If you have legitimate complains, then you are complaining. Whenever I read that someone is "whining" or "whining", I will always read it in a very negative light. Perhaps we are assigning different connotations to the terms.

[manictheatrefan]

"Palette", "pallate", "pallete", etc. for "palate" (the bit inside your mouth).

What annoys me the most is when supposed experts (cooks and singers, for example) get it wrong.

[ShootTheChicken]

When people don't realize that upload and download mean different things and use them interchangeably. These people should be hanged.

[SammyIAm]

When people don't realize that upload and download mean different things and use them interchangeably. These people should be hanged.

I tend to forgive less-techy people these sorts of mistakes, but it bothers me when people who should know better make them. Or for that matter, that people don't seem to put any effort into actually learning the meanings of technical terms. Like they think that as long as it's a "computery word" they're all pretty much interchangeable anyway. I haven't noticed this really happening in any other field though. For example if someone is cooking and needs a baster, they might ask for "that squeezey turkey thing" if they didn't know what it was called, rather than just asking for a "ladle" because they're all "cookingy words" anyway.

Your/you're, they're/their/there, and the like are bothersome, but anymore I just amuse myself by re-imagining the sentence as it was spelled. I really liked:

I got some junk mail today proclaiming "Everyone likes to know what's up in there neighbourhood!"

as:

Everyone likes to know, "What's up in there, neighbourhood?"

Lastly, I understand that language gets a little loose on the Internet, and people 5p33k lik3 th15 as a cultural thing, but when it starts to get in the way of actually understanding what is being said it's gone too far. I've seen status updates da luk lek dis an ti mak it 2 hurd fu mi tu reeed. Is that actually any easier to type?! Do you actually speak that way, because I don't think I would be able to understand you anyway.

Oh, side question: I've always wondered if sentences like the last one above should end with a question mark or not. I posed a question in the first part of the sentence, but then made a statement. Is that even allowed, or should I have split it into two sentences?

[Iulus Cofield]

I think that kind of spelling is easier to type when you use a "hunt and peck" technique, since it tends to have less non-consecutive letters.

[Derek]

Your/you're, they're/their/there, and the like are bothersome,

When I do this it's a typo caused by muscle memory, not a lack of understanding the difference. I imagine this is true for many people.

Oh, side question: I've always wondered if sentences like the last one above should end with a question mark or not. I posed a question in the first part of the sentence, but then made a statement. Is that even allowed, or should I have split it into two sentences?

If you want, you could separate it into two sentences and end the first with a question mark.