<3
edit: Added clarification.
It's like sandpaper on my brain, but that's how linguistics works. The more you study language, the more you realize it can't possibly work.
I understand the implicit preface that is something like "If you want to communicate frictionlessly …", but I think that one actually doesn't have to do this. The arguments for accepting variants of spelling do not, I think, automatically apply to accepting (illogical) variants of phrases; while there is no intrinsically 'right' spelling of a word, there is a sense (given what the constituent words mean) in which "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" are objectively different, and the latter captures what is probably meant.
I mean to say that it is perfectly possible to insist on, and to try to enforce, a logical approach to the use of language. (Without this impulse, for example, we wouldn't have Lojban (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban)—which, OK, may not be a very practical loss, but I think we can agree would be an intellectual loss.) Granted this will not optimise for communication, or pleasant social interaction, but we all have the right to choose the fitness metric that we want to use!
As in:
"I couldn't care less about this test." (literal)
"I could care less about this test." (sarcastic)
Yes, the actual expression is "couldn't care less" but I can easily see how people think it is "could care less" (in a sarcastic tone).
Same as "by the waist side" instead of "by the wayside." The term "wayside" is so rarely used now that people mishear it and rationalise the alternative definition that does make sense.
There are other examples too (correct on the right):
- Nip it in the butt vs. Nip it in the bud
- One in the same vs. One and the same
- You’ve got another thing coming vs. You’ve got another think coming
- Each one worse than the next vs. Each one worse than the last
- On accident vs. By accident
- For all intensive purposes vs. For all intents and purposes
- Extract revenge vs. Exact revenge
- etc