| |
Everything is not about you |
| |
adrianl (02:56 27/10/2008)
filecore (06:31 27/10/2008)
VincceH (08:54 27/10/2008)
monkeyson2 (10:03 27/10/2008)
Stoppers (18:07 29/10/2008)
VincceH (18:28 29/10/2008)
monkeyson2 (18:39 29/10/2008)
Stoppers (20:02 29/10/2008)
filecore (08:19 30/10/2008)
richcheng (11:30 30/10/2008)
gazza_fp (12:11 30/10/2008)
filecore (12:22 30/10/2008)
richcheng (16:24 30/10/2008)
filecore (12:21 30/10/2008)
Loris (12:39 30/10/2008)
richcheng (16:31 30/10/2008)
Stoppers (12:16 31/10/2008)
richcheng (12:42 3/11/2008)
VincceH (13:51 30/10/2008)
filecore (15:09 30/10/2008)
VincceH (15:30 30/10/2008)
filecore (16:33 30/10/2008)
VincceH (18:01 30/10/2008)
|
| |
|
Adrian Lees |
Message #108598, posted by adrianl at 02:56, 27/10/2008 |
Member
Posts: 1637
|
True, I read books on computational logic in my teens and that probably didn't help, but it cannot be just me that cringes.....so, what is wrong with that sentence, in the way our beloved Yankee friends use it? |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #108599, posted by filecore at 06:31, 27/10/2008, in reply to message #108598 |
Posts: 3868
|
what is wrong with that sentence It strikes me - in my humble capacity as a professional subeditor and proofreader, and former teacher of English - that it surely ought to be not everything is about you. The problem is that you have two structures in that sentence: "everything" and "XXX is about you", where for the second part, the missing element is defined by the first part. Now, although being pedantic I could say that the fundamental meaning is still identical, saying "everything is not" compared to "not everything is" makes the difference in that it doesn't break up and mix together the two structural elements.
You are first defining a value - "everything" or "not everything" - and then applying a value to that value "is or is not X". However, under that logic, the American sentence works. This is why it appleals to the logic-builder in you. Unfortunately, when the structural values of the language (as defined above) are compared to the inherent structural logic of English as a language, it falls apart. Otherwise, under the American patten, you could end up with such nonsensical structures as "not everything is not about you" which, while still logically correct, is a nightmare to make a conversation with.
Did I answer your question? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
VinceH |
Message #108601, posted by VincceH at 08:54, 27/10/2008, in reply to message #108599 |
 Lowering the tone since the dawn of time
Posts: 1600
|
what is wrong with that sentence it surely ought to be not everything is about you.
Agreed.
Now, although being pedantic I could say that the fundamental meaning is still identical, Not agreed.
It's probably intended to mean the same thing, but surely doesn't.
To say "Everything is not about you" must surely (being pedantic) mean that "nothing is about you" - when in fact some things probably are. "Not everything is about you" correctly leaves that possibility open. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #108602, posted by monkeyson2 at 10:03, 27/10/2008, in reply to message #108601 |
 Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
I'm going to put whoever wrote that through the total perspective vortex. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #108617, posted by Stoppers at 18:07, 29/10/2008, in reply to message #108601 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
It still pales into insignificance compared to "I could care less".
That drives me round the twist. It means NOTHING, other than there is something in this world that I care less about, and that's obviously true of everything except the one thing I couldn't care less about. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
VinceH |
Message #108619, posted by VincceH at 18:28, 29/10/2008, in reply to message #108617 |
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time
Posts: 1600
|
I'm not sure I've ever heard that used. At least not in its own right, rather than as part of something longer to express just how little someone does care - eg "I could care less, but it would be very, very difficult."
[Edited by VincceH at 18:29, 29/10/2008] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #108620, posted by monkeyson2 at 18:39, 29/10/2008, in reply to message #108617 |
Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
It still pales into insignificance compared to "I could care less".
That drives me round the twist. It means NOTHING, other than there is something in this world that I care less about, and that's obviously true of everything except the one thing I couldn't care less about. Print this on a handy bit of card and carry it everywhere you go: http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care_less.html |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #108622, posted by Stoppers at 20:02, 29/10/2008, in reply to message #108620 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
Print this on a handy bit of card and carry it everywhere you go: http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care_less.html Beautiful, thanks! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #108625, posted by filecore at 08:19, 30/10/2008, in reply to message #108617 |
Posts: 3868
|
It still pales into insignificance compared to "I could care less". Nope, I've heard this one a lot too and it bugs my tits also. It's NOT intended to be part of a longer sentence, it's just a badly malformed sentence, which ought to have a 'not' in it (as per the link).
Others that bug me are this impression (now spreading also to non-Americans) that sarcasm = irony, or just not knowing what irony even is (thanks in part to Alanis Morisette, I think). Ohh there are so many of these, that it's either hard to know where to start, or else hard to know where to stop... |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
richard cheng |
Message #108627, posted by richcheng at 11:30, 30/10/2008, in reply to message #108617 |
Posts: 655
|
It still pales into insignificance compared to "I could care less".
That drives me round the twist. It means NOTHING Well, no... It means the same as "I couldn't care less." It's an idiom.
Having said that, it kinda bugs me, too. 
In case, unlike the the author of that print-out-and-keep card, you actually could care less about linguistics, I'll point out that Language Log have published a lot of stuff about "could care less" in the links at the bottom of this page and this page (and the pages themselves, obviously). Best one is probably the first half of this page.
Interestingly (or irritatingly), it seems "could care less" is now actually more common than "couldn't care less", in the U.S.
I find other people's use of language a lot less irritating since I started reading Language Log. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Gary Hughes |
Message #108628, posted by gazza_fp at 12:11, 30/10/2008, in reply to message #108627 |
Member
Posts: 25
|
How about the use of the word "momentarily" instead of "in a moment". I for one, prefer some things to happen soon instead of for a short period of time, as in "We will be taking off momentarily". |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #108629, posted by filecore at 12:21, 30/10/2008, in reply to message #108627 |
Posts: 3868
|
It still pales into insignificance compared to "I could care less".
That drives me round the twist. It means NOTHING Well, no... It means the same as "I couldn't care less." It's an idiom.
You're both right, and both wrong. First off, it doesn't mean nothing - it means that the speaker is caring at a certain level, and could therefore care at a lower level. However, it doesn't mean the same as "couldn't care less" - even though that's how it's used - but rather, if used properly, it means the exact opposite. The fact that it's more common doesn't apply any magical grammatical sense to it, it just means that the people using it (in the incorrect way) are linguistically lazy, and utter morons. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #108630, posted by filecore at 12:22, 30/10/2008, in reply to message #108628 |
Posts: 3868
|
"We will be taking off momentarily". The other meaning would be correct if the plane is scheduled to come crashing back onto the runway just a moment after taking off - you can't argue with that, so your example wasn't full (or fool) proof. However yes, this is generally another case of incorrect use becoming mainsteadm. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Tony Haines |
Message #108631, posted by Loris at 12:39, 30/10/2008, in reply to message #108629 |
 Ha ha, me mine, mwahahahaha
Posts: 1025
|
Say "I could care more" instead.
There are lots of phrases in common use that don't mean what people intend. "Cheap at half the price", for example.
I have a theory:
Basically, the original phrase did make sense. The above example would have been "Cheap at twice the price".
Then someone altered it to make a point (eg, that something wasn't cheap), or just to be witty.
Other people thought it was funny, and started using the phrase for a joke.
Children heard the phrase used and assimilated it to mean what it was intended to mean, rather than what it said.
In one generation, language was corrupted. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
VinceH |
Message #108632, posted by VincceH at 13:51, 30/10/2008, in reply to message #108627 |
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time
Posts: 1600
|
Language Log have published a lot of stuff about "could care less" in the links at the bottom of this page and this page (and the pages themselves, obviously). Best one is probably the first half of this page. Which helpfully led me to this page - which supports my interpretation of it - lacking anthing further in the sentence, because the intonation implies it. In fact, thinking back, I've actually used it that way - as well as with an additional part as per my earlier post (that being for those whom I consider too stupid to realise what I meant).
Quoting Jason Togglewossname:
It's NOT intended to be part of a longer sentence, it's just a badly malformed sentence, which ought to have a 'not' in it (as per the link). How incredibly arrogant, and how nice of you to state, categorically, that if I was to say "I could care less..." I would be doing so with no intended or implied second half. Could you also tell me what to have for lunch, please? And should I have tomato sauce on it?
Frankly, I could care less about your opinion...*
* but if I did, I'd be utterly, utterly astounded, given how little I do care. See above for why this footnote might be necessary. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #108633, posted by filecore at 15:09, 30/10/2008, in reply to message #108632 |
Posts: 3868
|
How incredibly arrogant, and how nice of you to state, categorically, that if I was to say "I could care less..." I would be doing so with no intended or implied second half. Arrogant? I would say that is where communication breaks down, more than anything else. I would be more arrongant - even more than you, in fact - if I assumed a) that you were implying something, and b) that I knew what it was. I can't necessarily work out your intention by the absence of a statement; that is counter to the whole basis of communication. Wouldn't it be arrogant of me to do so?
Still, I bow before the state of your knowledge. You seem to know so much, you made fun of my surname in an immensely intelligent and grown-up manner, and you even *gasp* found a webpage to back up your opinion! Imagine how rare such a thing must be. Congratulations. I don't see how somebody at my level can compete fairly with somebody at your level, so therefore I won't tire you with further discussion on this matter.
</ >
[Edited by filecore at 15:24, 30/10/2008] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
VinceH |
Message #108634, posted by VincceH at 15:30, 30/10/2008, in reply to message #108633 |
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time
Posts: 1600
|
I bow before the state of your knowledge. You seem to know so much, you made fun of my surname in an immensely intelligent and grown-up manner, Doing that with people's names is something I do quite a lot, and in some cases I find a name which 'works' for me and stick with it. If you'd care to use that little search box on the left, you'll find it's not the first time I've used Togglewossname.
Other fairly common examples off the top of my head: I quite consistently use Overpuddle for America. Stehlin Hostag is Smelly Hostage. Peter Naulls is Pot Noodles (though I try to reserve that for when he's being a prat because he really doesn't like it). John Cartmell is Jolly Cartwheels. The last name of the drivers for a company I'm involved with is Salahudin, so I call him Salad Dressing. And so on. And so forth.
and you even *gasp* found a webpage to back up your opinion! It's not an opinion, it's a fact. "I could care less" can be, as I stated, used as part of a longer sentence to express not caring very much at all. Do I presume from your reaction that you disagree? (Even though I did in fact use it in exactly that way, which kind of proves that it can be used that way.)
Or are you just a bit miffed that you're wrong? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
richard cheng |
Message #108636, posted by richcheng at 16:24, 30/10/2008, in reply to message #108628 |
Posts: 655
|
How about the use of the word "momentarily" instead of "in a moment". I for one, prefer some things to happen soon instead of for a short period of time, as in "We will be taking off momentarily". Again, this post on Language Log might help you find this less irritating. At worst, it's deprecated, rather than flat out incorrect. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
richard cheng |
Message #108637, posted by richcheng at 16:31, 30/10/2008, in reply to message #108629 |
Posts: 655
|
It still pales into insignificance compared to "I could care less".
That drives me round the twist. It means NOTHING Well, no... It means the same as "I couldn't care less." It's an idiom.
You're both right, and both wrong. First off, it doesn't mean nothing - it means that the speaker is caring at a certain level, and could therefore care at a lower level. However, it doesn't mean the same as "couldn't care less" - even though that's how it's used - but rather, if used properly, it means the exact opposite. The fact that it's more common doesn't apply any magical grammatical sense to it
Yes, it does. That's what an idiom is. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #108638, posted by filecore at 16:33, 30/10/2008, in reply to message #108634 |
Posts: 3868
|
Or are you just a bit miffed that you're wrong? No, I'm just trolling. After all, it's not like I could care less. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
VinceH |
Message #108639, posted by VincceH at 18:01, 30/10/2008, in reply to message #108638 |
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time
Posts: 1600
|
Or are you just a bit miffed that you're wrong? No, I'm just trolling. After all, it's not like I could care less.
That's fair enough, then. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #108640, posted by Stoppers at 12:16, 31/10/2008, in reply to message #108629 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
It still pales into insignificance compared to "I could care less".
That drives me round the twist. It means NOTHING Well, no... It means the same as "I couldn't care less." It's an idiom.
You're both right, and both wrong. First off, it doesn't mean nothing...
Not guilty - I wuz snipped! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
richard cheng |
Message #108661, posted by richcheng at 12:42, 3/11/2008, in reply to message #108640 |
Posts: 655
|
It still pales into insignificance compared to "I could care less".
That drives me round the twist. It means NOTHING Well, no... It means the same as "I couldn't care less." It's an idiom.
You're both right, and both wrong. First off, it doesn't mean nothing...
Not guilty - I wuz snipped!
A fair point. I think I slightly misinterpreted your post, and thus when I snipped it I ended up inadvertently implying you'd said something you hadn't. Sorry!
However, my original point still remains, which is that the phrase means pretty much exactly the opposite of what you said it means, however jarring it is to your (and my) ears. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
