News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Librarians Are Dangerous by sunshowers on Saturday April 19, 2025 @01:04PM (#43737691)
It's like "could care less": not perfectly logical but quite idiomatic I think, and in any case the meaning is clear.
Re:Librarians Are Dangerous by nothrabannosir on Saturday April 19, 2025 @02:55PM (#43738572)
Clear meaning: yes. But idiomatic? I have to protest XD

Could care less has indeed left the barn by now and I could care less (as you can tell) but mixing up understate and overstate? I hope we’re in time to stop this horse.

Re:Librarians Are Dangerous by soulofmischief on Saturday April 19, 2025 @03:16PM (#43738705)
I agree and I'm glad I was corrected.

I think we lost the plot once "unloosen" and "loosen" started meaning the same thing: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/unloosen

Re:Librarians Are Dangerous by nothrabannosir on Saturday April 19, 2025 @04:13PM (#43739133)
(for the record it's all inconsequential pedantry and in good cheer :) thanks for being a good sport)
Re:Librarians Are Dangerous by Nifty3929 on Saturday April 19, 2025 @04:54PM (#43739394)
Don't get me started on "try and"
Re:Librarians Are Dangerous by GTP on Saturday April 19, 2025 @06:04PM (#43739845)
Try and get started :D
Re:Librarians Are Dangerous by stavros on Saturday April 19, 2025 @05:01PM (#43739436)
"Idiomatic" is idiomatic usage for "wrong".
Re:Librarians Are Dangerous by sunshowers on Sunday April 20, 2025 @07:12AM (#43743045)
What? In this context, idiomatic just means the kinds of expressions that native speakers would use. (The term also applies to programming languages.)

By definition, native speakers aren't wrong. If your model doesn't match observed reality, it is the model that's at issue, not reality.

Re:Librarians Are Dangerous by dredmorbius on Saturday April 19, 2025 @05:30PM (#43739628)
We can take the horse that's fled the now-closed barn door to water, but can we make it think?
Re:Librarians Are Dangerous by sheepdestroyer on Saturday April 19, 2025 @01:48PM (#43738058)
The meaning is likely understood/inferred by many if not most, sure.

It's still a "contresens" (can't find the right word in English, literally counter to its meaning), and should absolutely be avoided for clarity.

Let's not just say that it's alright

Re:Librarians Are Dangerous by sunshowers on Saturday April 19, 2025 @02:25PM (#43738321)
It's alright. Human languages aren't really logically tight the way computer languages are.

An example that goes completely unremarked on is "near miss", which logically means something that came close to missing but actually hit, and yet in idiomatic use means the opposite. People also get upset at "literally" to mean "figuratively", another one I find strange because it's an intensifier.

Clarity matters more in formal writing, and "couldn't care less" isn't particularly formal in any case.

Re:Librarians Are Dangerous by sheepdestroyer on Saturday April 19, 2025 @02:51PM (#43738541)
I did use literally correctly.

And I can't agree with you. As a non native speaker, I deeply appreciate people making an effort to use language correctly to transmit information. I call that being mindfull of your interlocutors.

Re:Librarians Are Dangerous by sunshowers on Saturday April 19, 2025 @05:23PM (#43739592)
I'm also a non-native (though near-native) speaker and writer. I grew up reading a lot of English but not speaking much of it.
Re:Librarians Are Dangerous by SoftTalker on Saturday April 19, 2025 @03:46PM (#43738945)
George Carlin had a bit about “near miss” and other illogical phrasings.
Re:Librarians Are Dangerous by synecdoche on Saturday April 19, 2025 @04:44PM (#43739322)
In a way there’s nothing wrong with ”near miss”. It’s a miss not far from the target. Still a miss.
Re:Librarians Are Dangerous by saltcured on Saturday April 19, 2025 @05:09PM (#43739492)
I wouldn't put these in the same category. The inversion of "could care less" meaning "couldn't care less" or "unloose" meaning "loose" are similar.

But "near miss" is more a parsing ambiguity, if not a mere disagreement about grammar. People who think it is illogical seem to assume it is "nearly missing". But in actual usage it is more that "near miss" is like a "narrow miss" and a "far miss" is like a "wide miss", all encoding distance to the implied target/hit zone.

Re:Librarians Are Dangerous by navbaker on Saturday April 19, 2025 @02:31PM (#43738371)
It is alright. Most people can figure out from context clues what the writer means and the only thing being pedantic and demanding about other peoples’ language does is make them REALLY not want to do what you’re saying.
Re:Librarians Are Dangerous by cenamus on Saturday April 19, 2025 @02:10PM (#43738216)
Sounds vaguely similar to Jesperson's cycle and double negatives, the "couldn't care less" idioms. And "absolutely avoided for clarity" is a bit harsh, language is by its nature imprecise and telling people how to speak has (thankfully) almost never worked to avert language change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jespersen%27s_cycle