things that confused you when learning english>"don't know nothing">"ain't no [insert]">"couldn't care less">just idioms in general
apparently>no can do>long time no seeare calques from chinese…
Double negatives are informal/dialectal speech
>>219806408these two actually make sense
>>219806358why are you learning AAVE
>>219806358Nigga that's not english that's niggerish
>>219806358>"don't know nothing"just memorize it>"ain't no [insert]"just memorize it>"couldn't care less"come on dude this one is easy>just idioms in generaljust memorize them
>>219806430I read somewhere they used to normal part of english until some grammar nazis in the 1600s decided it's improper as it doesn't follow mathemaitical logic
>>219806358Idioms are like that in any other language, it's just a matter of rote learning once you find out the meaning. Tbf I feel like "couldn't care less" is very self explanatory though, wait till you hear ones like "raining cats and dogs" (raining very hard) or "costs an arm and a leg" (expensive)
>>219806358>>"couldn't care less"this one is obvious though
>>219806931>couldn't care less" is very self explanatory>>219806953>>>"couldn't care less">this one is obvious thoughyeah but while learning this i heard both "could care less" & "couldn't care less" so i was very confused
I am still confused by "all but"The fact most english speakers are confused about it too doesnt help me
>>219806358Does it confuse ESLs that “would you not like to know” becomes “wouldn’t you like to know”
>>219807032>i heard both "could care less" & "couldn't care less""Could care less" is a bastardization of "couldn't care less" and usually used by room temp IQ people
>>219807263Ironically this has created a situation where one says "I could care less" (literally meaning they care somewhat but not very much) but everyone else thinks they're saying something very different
>>219807126how would you use "all but" in an English sentence
>>219807263it's proof that couldn't care less confuses even native speakersit's the downside of widespread literacy, sub 115 monkeys trying to use idioms invented by the 130+
>>219807263The way a person talks can be a good indicator of general intelligence, but not just by which idioms they choose to use. That just shows which they were most exposed to growing up and then which got integrated into their normal vocabulary.A better giveaway of an actual low-intelligence person is when they overuse certain turns of phrase they've heard to try to use smart without actually understanding what they mean or how to use them, like "in and of itself" or "all intensive purposes." For me, when someone obsesses over "could care less" being wrong and "couldn't care less" being correct, that just shows that this is person who cares a lot about appearing intelligent, and doesn't care about putting other people down to make themselves look better. It shows that it's a petty person who cares a lot about appearances but not substance
>>219806358I stopped caring about what English natives said the moment I realized they don't know the difference between your/you're or effect/affect
>>219807445if you were intelligent you would stop using "could care less" incorrectly
Every time someone points put that "could care less" is technically incorrect it makes me want to use "could care less" instead of "couldn't" more just so that they can keep getting performatively mad about it.The big difference between "could care less" and an actual grammatical mistake is that people can still tell exactly what you meant every time, they don't assume that really you meant the opposite. It doesn't produce any misunderstandings. And conveying meaning is the entire point of language
>>219807602it does cause misunderstandings doe for esl's at least
>>219807602Could care less conveys a different meaning than couldn't care less though
>>219807602same with "irregardless"
>performatively madI'm not mad and getting frustrated with a half-witted pseudointellectual is genuine, not performativesmoothbrains don't know any better but you do, so continuing to say "could care less" as a form of petty eye-poking is irresponsible and unbecoming of someone of your standing
I can't make fun of english because we say "fingers of the foot" and "I have X years"
>>219807735yeah but no one ever says "i could care less" to mean "I care about this thing somewhat"
>>219807735Not if you really understand englishIf you say to someone,>This guy is making fun of you on 4chanand you reply:>Oh please, I could care less what some retard on 4chan thinksthe meaning isn't ambiguous
>>219807790>"fingers of the foot">and "I have X years"literally nothing weird about this construction. weird thing to be embarassed about
>>219807380>it's the downside of widespread literacy, sub 115 monkeys trying to use idioms invented by the 130+Trvth
>>219807790we say the same my eastern european brother
>>219807813Sounds like you're just used to your countrymen being retarded
>>219807795I guess there's a reason the language"s called English
>>219807517You say that until you're confronted with a native English speaker asking you to repeat what you just said because your accent sounds retarded and they want to make you feel bad
>>219806408No they ain’t
>>219806358>sign>sing
>>219811369>t. Jean-Claude Chingchieh
I've recently noticed a lot of natives use less when it should be fewer
>>219811836Prescriptivism lost
>>219806358"couldn't care less" means you already don't care so you literally couldn't care less than not caring at all.
>>219811369>sign>sigh
>>219811963Lost what
>>219806358a vs an before words being based on what they sound like and not on whether they start with consonants or not
>>219812088lost the linguistic war against could care lessers
>>219806358Gendered pronouns. Why does it even MATTER if someone who's being talked about in the third person is a man or a woman? Either he or she is not even there, or he or she is and it's obvious which one he or she is. But no, it's gotta be fundamentally built into the grammar. Fucking Indo-European language family.
>>219807331"Our meager supply of food is all but exhausted."It's confusing because it sounds like it means the opposite of what it actually means. "All but" sounds like it should mean "everything except" when it actually means "almost."
>>219807445>"in and of itself"What do you mean? How do people say that wrong?
>>219812203english is funny with their gendered pronouns.here everything has a gender. nouns, numerals, adjectives, verbs etc...
>>219806358couldnt care less if you dont know nothing, you aint no shit bro
>>219807445I have a friend who used to use the word "ontologically" as a synonym for "objectively" and I had to have a talk with him that it's a philosophical word and not a fancy way to say "objectively"He's a video essay type so I blame some midwit who made one of those and he just kept parroting it
>>219806408they are from hong kong pidgin>>219806824english was devastated by reniassance autism. those same fags are the ones who fucked up our second-person pronouns because anything less than the plural subject was just too impolite
>>219806931>raining cats and dogsLiteral golden ager shit. Boomers will hear that and think it's old timey
>>219807445Trvke
>>219812232Mnemonic: supplies have taken a beating in all ways but(except) those causing total exhaustion
I wouldn't say confusing, but some of the sentences that break the usual SVO structure just make my brain stop for a moment and then immediately go to "oh, right".
