thanks for the kind words about my sometimes on again/sometimes off again blog. Everything depends on whether I find freelance work or not and whether something has pulled my chain.

About “said on” or “said”: In newspapers (at least in the U.S.) journalists are taught to omit that “on” as unnecessary. Also, the first part of the Ws will be the most important. Here it’s the star and its satellites not the researchers. Here endeth the Journalism 101 lesson.

Kill that offending adverb, and the sentence is just fine.

I love this blog and share your horror at some of the outrageous misuses of English that you highlight. I would have to disagree with the above sentence being “just fine” without “intriguingly”.

European researchers said on Tuesday, surely. For my part I would probably have preferred to start with “European researchers said on Tuesday that…”, although that may not have been appropriate in context.

Everyone is always welcome even if he got here by mistake. And thanks for thinking it’s interesting. My passion, everyone else’s snore.

ESL students I can forgive since English is so unforgiving, but the person who was born here…. I’d like to think he/she knows better. I live and dream.

Alas, while nouns and proper names indicate possession with “‘s”, many pronouns are irregular! Compare and contrast:

The roof belonging to the house = The house’s roof
The roof belonging to it = Its roof

Students of English as a second language must love this irregularity! Surely “it’s roof” would be more consistent and make more sense? Similarly, we have:

This coat belongs to Mary? = Is this Mary’s coat?
This coat belongs to who? = Whose coat is this?

Again, the student of English as a second language must wonder why we do not say, “Who’s coat is this?”

Of course, English wouldn’t be any fun if it were completely regular! But maybe the above irregularities are part of the reason for the common confusion between “it’s” and “its”, and “who’s” and “whose”?

Next, those sites are all over the place explaining their positions–and going some distance to do so–and go into the subject in way too much depth. So, let’s keep things as simple as possible.

A few thoughts:

The OED doesn’t pass judgment about syntactical correctness; it gives definition and citations.

I think both constructions are grammatical; they just mean different things.

Both can be uttered sarcastically or not.

English isn’t French, so the ne…pas example is bogus.

Yes, the problem probably does have to do with the negativity.

There are prescriptive rules for a reason: ease of communication when writing. Spoken communication is more forgiving of grammatical and language errors because it’s accompanied by vocal and facial expressions and human kindness (not necessarily mine–at least in my head).

And still, “could care less” drives me crazy.

Finally, I never, ever saw a prescriptive rule that forbade ending a sentence with a preposition. Some language dunderhead in our dim past forced this nonexistent rule on language arts teachers, and we’ve carried it forward. (Well, not me.)

And another finally, sometimes it’s all right to split an infinitive, but sometimes the sentence reads better when it isn’t split. One does have to develop a prosodic ear. I would certainly hope that all people who are copy editors, etc. have that ear or learn it. Otherwise, you’re all in for a heap more of my kvetching.

4. In negative and conditional construction: a. not to care passes from the notion of ‘not to trouble oneself’, to those of ‘not to mind, not to regard or pay any deference or attention, to pay no respect, be indifferent’.

and then among the various subtypes listed (e.g. care a button or a fig) comes eventually to the specific phrase in question,

(c) Colloq. phr. (I, etc.) couldn’t care less: (I am, etc.) completely uninterested, utterly indifferent; freq. as phr. used attrib. Hence couldn’t-care-less-ness.

for which the earliest citation is from 1946, and then gives an explicit listing to the unnegated form:

(d) U.S. colloq. phr. (I, etc.) could care less = sense (c) above, with omission of negative.

1966 Seattle Post-Intelligencer 1 Nov. 21/2 My husband is a lethargic, indecisive guy who drifts along from day to day. If a bill doesn’t get paid he could care less.
1973 Washington Post 5 Jan. B1/1 A few crusty-souled Republican senators who could care less about symbolic rewards.
1978 J. CARROLL Mortal Friends III. iii. 281 ‘I hate sneaking past your servants in the morning.’ ‘They know, anyway. They could care less. Thornton mistreats them horribly.’

See http://158.130.17.5/~myl/languagelog/archives/001182.html

So the OED specifically states that “could care less” has the same meaning as “couldn’t care less”.

With the advent of digital newspaper databases, “could care less” has now been dated back to 1955; see http://158.130.17.5/~myl/languagelog/archives/002063.html

I’ve seen various accounts of how the phrase arose and how it could indeed mean the same as its apparent negation, “couldn’t care less”. One theory is that “I could care less” is short for “I could care less, but I’d have to try”, and occasionally I’ve heard it said with exactly the right intonation to suggest that. See http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/mifcouldcareless.shtml Another is John Lawlor’s idea that “could care less” is an example of a Negative Polarity Item. See http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/giveadamn.html Steven Pinker argues that the usage is sarcastic: http://camba.ucsd.edu/files/misc/ll/grammar_puss.html ; others disagree: http://158.130.17.5/~myl/languagelog/archives/001256.html

I think “could care less” and “couldn’t care less” are both grammatically correct, but colloquial idioms. Best avoided in formal writing!

Nevertheless, even though a reduplicative requires heavier stress on the first word and my examples don’t have that, reduplicative it is. Actually, in my examples the words are said in different tones, starting on a higher note. There (higher note), there (lower note).

Still, it’s an interesting little hiccup in our language, isn’t it?

This page — http://www.dailywritingtips.com/reduplicatives-and-their-meanings/ — distinguishes between “repeating reduplicatives” (such as those you mention), “rhyming reduplicatives” (such as “mumbo jumbo”), and “vowel change reduplicatives” (such as “tick tock”). I don’t have my dictionaries at hand to check, but Online Merriam-Webster seems to support this usage; i.e., that “reduplicative” on its own does not necessarily imply repetition.

By the way, the Brits say, “Hear, hear,” when they applaud something.

BTW, my “silly proscription” is not silly. Have you ever read a dissertation? Full of passive voice and b-o-r-i-n-g. Furthermore, I make no pretense that my pages are the complete grammar book.

Finally, I think it odd that you’re searching the Web to play “gotcha” rather than spending your time more productively.

Congratulations! In the above sentence you have:
(a) flouted your own silly proscription of the passive voice,
(b) demonstrated that your rules for identifying the passive voice are incomplete, and
(c) used the passive voice to improve emphasis and cohesion, its main function in the language.

2. Your mother would never kill you, so let me rewrite the sentence since you take it so personally. “I’d better get home before my loving, kind and decent mother gets worried.”

3. Yes, your grandmother is a dog with bone over this one. I think if you asked her, she could even tell when to use as/as if/like and why. As/asif/like will be coming soon. Look for it in a blog near you.

4. Your sentence is correct because “surprisingly” modifies the verb “am.” (And don’t exaggerate; you’re worth maybe $1.50.) Yes, it sounds right to you because it’s so common. Who cares. It’s still not right. The adverb’s job is to modify, limit, describe verbs, adjectives or other adverbs. If there are none (none is a collective noun) of these things around in the sentence, then it’s just slowly twisting in the wind. Then, we in the know call it a misplaced modifier.

5. There is no rule, I repeat, no rule that says sentences can’t end in prepositions, which means they can. I know your language arts teachers drilled it into your head, and that’s because it was drilled into theirs. This lousy intepretation of grammar has been perpetuated for generations. If the sentence reads best with a preposition at the end, then the sentence is correct. Why twist yourself into a pretzel trying not to end the sentence with a preposition.

6. Not yet.

2) “I had better get home before my mother kills me.” Uh, yeah. Isn’t that the only time I CAN get home? And, btw, why am I going home where Mom wants to kill me?

3) “Like I said…” “As I said…” I still don’t get it. I say “As I said” because Nana has shamed me out of saying “Like I said”, but I don’t know why. Why?

4) Intriguingly, surprisingly, etc. I understand what you were saying about “intriguingly” not being used the way it was, but it still sounds right to me. Is that just because I’m so used to hearing it wrong? Is it the same situation with “surprisingly?” Any other words? “Surprisingly, I’m worth well over $10 million.” That one seems to be right. Is it?

5) I’ve never heard anyone say that a sentence can be ended with a preposition. Can you always end a sentence with a preposition? Are there exceptions?

6) Are you sorry yet that you gave me the link to your blog?

I’m afraid to open my mouth any more, or my fingers, in this case. And the commas…I still don’t get it.

Many thanks, Pat