Huge Red Dead Redemption mistake!

[voty2000]

twesterm said:

voty2000 said:

twesterm said:

voty2000 said:

Trentonater said:

yes the characters in the game use the word buffalo but the game outside the story shouldn't. in other aspects of the game the word usage is different from the characters. but it sounds like you all don't mind like how most americans pronounce "often" without the t being silent

Exactly, we don't mind.  When to Americans are talking to each other they understand the colloquialisms that are being used.  What does it matter if it's not technically correct grammar and such.  English used in the USA has been evolving since it was colonized and there is no reason to stop it.  It makes our version of English unique and most people living the in US could care less if other people think they should us proper English. 

Well since this is a thread about semantics I should point out it's you couldn't care less.  Saying you could care less doesn't really say much.  :-p

I'll use semantics right back at you.  Some Americans do care what people in other countries think of how they talk so they do care.  Thus, Americans as a whole could care a little less.

The context you used it in does not imply that.  Saying you could care less implies that there is some amount of caring that is less than what Americans care.  That's fine, but it's incredibly vague.

If we pretend there are caring units and even let those units have negative numbers we could have person A that has 1000 care units, person B that has -1000 care units, and person C that has -1001 care units.

Obviously since we stated that we can have negative units and didn't place any bounds, any person, person D, could care less than person A, B, or C.  The problem comes with person C.  He does care less than person A and B but just saying person C could care less doesn't quantify how much. 

Your statement makes it sound as if person C cares less the same amount with person A and B.

Now if we say couldn't care less that says there is a minimum which we'll say is 0 care units.  If person A has 100 care units and person B has 0 care units then you could care less than person A which doesn't mean much but you could not care less than person B.  Person B is at the absolute minimum and it is impossible to care less than him.

So saying you could care less is simply vague and implies nothing other than it's possible to care less than you.  In a system that doesn't have limits, that's a pretty meaningless statement, especially in your original context.  Saying you couldn't care less has much more meaning and is not vague.  It immediately tells someone you care the absolute minimum amount and nothing could be done to decrease that amount and nobody can possibly care less than that.

I'll give it to you.  You win.