The phrase "could care less" has a logic error. It makes more sense for someone to say, "I couldn't care less" when the person wants to express that he doesn't care.
Both "could care less" and "could not care less" work well in conveying the semantics "I care little".
One says, "although I care very little, there is some wiggle room to care even less". The other says, "I care so little, I couldn't care less than I do now".
Either way, I care little is the main message.
However, "couldn't care less" is more sensible, because what is the point of expressing that you care little, but still have room to care less? That sort of expression would only serve as a retort against an accusation that you do not care. ("A: You don't care at all! B: That is not true, I could care less.") B admits that he or she cares little, but objects to being characterized as entirely uncaring.
We should choose the expression based on its logical sensibility, rather than regional dialect.
I don't know about "could care less" conveying the semantics - I genuinely paused when I first read it to work out which meaning it had.
Let's saying "caring" goes 0 to 10. "Could care less" includes everything from 1 to 10, assuming integer granularity - it's very much the right hand side of the scale, anyway.
Only "couldn't care less" covers that 0 rating.
So - perhaps it's terrible in conveying semantics and only context/tone imply the disinterest being communicated?
Don't get me started on "could care less", my eyes sting when I read that. My other pet hate is "so fun", as in "that was so fun"...I blame those US kids channels for that one.
Fun also functions as an adjective. "That was a fun movie. It was fun. How fun? So fun."
I agree, there's definitely two conflicting usages here: and activity can be the noun "fun", in the same way that doing something can be can be "bliss" or "hell" or "a complete waste of everyone's time". And so while I can say "My drive in to work was hell", I can't say "My drive in to work was so hell" (because not an adjective). But if I can say "My drive in to work was enjoyable", and even "My drive in to work was so enjoyable", then what's wrong with saying "My drive in to work was so fun"?
I assume the issue is with the construct "so fun", not the word "fun". And in that construct, the word "so" is an intensifier. It emphasizes the nature of the next word. You'll hear it in constructs like "that was so cool", or "that was so awesome", or other such phrases that kids like to say when they're excited about something.
Good point. My comment left the impression that it was something only kids say, but it's absolutely not. "So" is a perfectly good adverb that's used elsewhere as well. It just happened that the immediate phrases that popped into my head were things kids were likely to say (probably because the grandparent comment referenced "kids channels").
I think it's because some people and style guides (e.g. Strunk & White) reject this use of "so" as being a generic, overly vague intensifier. Often these people suggest pairing it with a "that" clause, which allegedly makes it more acceptable.
So, instead of "so fun", some people would prefer that you write e.g. "so fun that I squealed with glee", or even just "it was incredibly fun".
At least that's the argument I've come across. To the extent I even think about such things, I couldn't really care less if people use "so" like this; the meaning seems perfectly clear.
Who cares if it has a "logical error", whatever that even means, if you understand. And I know you understand it.
Millions of people use this idiom completely intuitively, following their instincts of language that I, as someone who doesn't have English as their native language, can only be jealous of.
"I could care less" is either meant to be taken sarcastically, or it came to be because the "dn't c" consonant cluster is hard to pronounce, the same reason you don't pronounce the 'l' in could, the 'k' in knee, knight or knave, the 'p' in psychologist or pneumonia, or half the letters in Wednesday.