Why do we use a phrase in English which means the opposite?

October 24, 2005 1:40 PM

EnglishIsAStupidLanguageFilter: Person 1: "Thanks for all your help." Person 2: "That's OK - it was the least I could do."

I heard the above phrase the other day - probably not for the first time... but this time I was paying attention.

The response (italicised) suggests that the person who helped could have done more - but didn't; they only did the bare minimum. This is clearly not what is intended by the phrase!

Is this a UK quirk, or is it in use elsewhere around the globe?
Are there any lexicologists in the house who'd be able to explain how we've arrived at using a phrase such as this to mean the opposite of what it actually says...?
I've wracked my brains trying to think of other cases where we use a phrase which, when taken literally, means the opposite - but can't think of any. Is this one unique in that regard?

posted by Chunder to Writing & Language (42 answers total)

That phrase is a statement of modesty. In essence, what the responder is saying is "Please, I am not worthy of your thanks and praises. Do not put me up on such a high pedestal. I only did what others would have done", or something like that.

I think the phrase says exactly as it was spoken.
posted by cincidog at 1:46 PM on October 24, 2005

It's not meant as the opposite. It's meant to wave off the thanks a bit: "That's OK, you don't have to thank me, I was obligated as a reasonable human being to at least do what I did, so I don't need to be recognized or thanked for doing it."
posted by occhiblu at 1:46 PM on October 24, 2005

Or, what cincidog said.
posted by occhiblu at 1:47 PM on October 24, 2005

The response (italicised) suggests that the person who helped could have done more - but didn't; they only did the bare minimum. This is clearly not what is intended by the phrase!

Actually, it is part of the meaning of the phrase. When Person A thanks Person B, it might imply that they really imposed on Person B and inconvenienced them. Person B can acknowledge the thanks and simultaneously deny that it was an inconvenience by saying that it was "the least I could do." Notice the "that's OK" -- as if the "Thanks for all your help" was an apology. We could rephrase it like this:

"Thank you for your help, I recognise that it was a big job and I'm sorry if it inconvenienced you."
"That's OK - it was the least I could do (it didn't inconvenience me)."
posted by heatherann at 1:47 PM on October 24, 2005

Welcome to stupid english phrases! I believe that particular phrase is supposed to be showing modesty. Like, "oh no! don't say thanks, it was nothing [no effort?] really." I guess so that the person you did the favour for doesn't feel obliged to do anything back to you. At least that's my theory.

This up there with saying "Mr Jones was everything but angry" when describe Mr Jones as being very angry.

English is a bit weird.
posted by alexst at 1:47 PM on October 24, 2005

It's in at least some regions of the US. Other phrase that means the "opposite": "I could care less" (instead of "I couldn't care less") when dismissing something that you absolutely care nothing about.

I think the general feeling of the phrase is not that they did the bare minimum, but that they would have felt remiss if they had done any less. But, in this case Person 2 doesn't want Person 1 to feel that they've put out Person 2 overly.
posted by skynxnex at 1:47 PM on October 24, 2005

No, it makes perfect sense. They are saying they would not do anything less than that.
posted by furtive at 1:47 PM on October 24, 2005

This up there with saying "Mr Jones was everything but angry" when describe Mr Jones as being very angry.

Huh? I've never heard anything remotely resembling this usage.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 1:50 PM on October 24, 2005

Other phrase that means the "opposite": "I could care less"

That doesn't even really mean the opposite. People who grow up with this phrase understand it to mean, literally, 'I could care less...[but I already care so little that no one would notice a difference].
posted by Miko at 1:51 PM on October 24, 2005

It exists in Spanish as well; when someone says "gracias" you say "de nada" - literally, "it's nothing" or "of nothing".
posted by delmoi at 1:55 PM on October 24, 2005

Best answer: "It was the least I could do" means "I'd be ashamed to have done less than that", or to put it another way, "any decent person would have done at least that much".
posted by AmbroseChapel at 1:56 PM on October 24, 2005

Same in French, de rien or "for nothing."
posted by occhiblu at 1:57 PM on October 24, 2005

Ishamel: Perhaps I just invented that memory then :(
posted by alexst at 1:58 PM on October 24, 2005

i always thought that someone who says i could care less was just being careless, considering it means that one does care to some degree

i couldn't care less, to stay with the topic, means 'it is the least i can care' but without the implied modesty
posted by troybob at 1:58 PM on October 24, 2005

This up there with saying "Mr Jones was everything but angry" when describe Mr Jones as being very angry.

No it means exactly what it says, that he was upset, but not quite to the level of angry. Kind of like the limit in calculus.

Y becomes infinite as X was everything but 10.
posted by delmoi at 1:59 PM on October 24, 2005

or in English as "it's nothing."

The phrase makes perfect sense, and means what it says.
posted by GregW at 1:59 PM on October 24, 2005

I could care less- I think when you hear people say this they really do mean to say "I couldn't care less", but just missed the "n't" when they picked up the phrase and never thought about what they were saying long enough to realize it didn't make sense.
posted by gus at 2:00 PM on October 24, 2005

Miko, I was accepting that that is how people use the phrase ("I already care so little that no one would notice a difference"). However, it still has the same general meaning and is used in identical situations as "I couldn't care less". So, in the sense that the phrases are opposites (one is negated), but the meaning stays the same. It fits the catagory of "phrase which means the opposite".
posted by skynxnex at 2:01 PM on October 24, 2005

Furthermore, opposites are common in slang (for example, all the terms for 'good' in various languages that are literally related to badness.)

I am interested in why this would qualify English as stupid or weird. Why is that?
posted by ORthey at 2:03 PM on October 24, 2005

"I could care less" is a scrambling of "I couldn't care less" (source 1, source 2). Google hits for "I could care less" are neck-and neck with those for "I couldn't care less" and "I could not care less" combined, at about 750,000.
posted by zsazsa at 2:16 PM on October 24, 2005

Response by poster: I think that AmbroseChapel nailed it - I understood what the person meant from the context, but it just sounds really stupid. This explanation makes sense, and the alternative phrases are unwieldy enough to not get used.

Delmoi: I think that the gracias/de nada pair is similar, but makes more sense than the English phrase; Saying "It was nothing" implies more strongly that you've not been inconvenienced by helping, whereas "the least I could do" - in my mind at least! - still suggests that the person could have done more... ;-)

I'm going to start a crusade to say "I'd be ashamed to help any less" and see how many friends/colleagues comment...
posted by Chunder at 2:16 PM on October 24, 2005

fixed source 1
posted by zsazsa at 2:16 PM on October 24, 2005

i often find that people who say 'i could care less' also say 'i couldn't phantom' instead of 'i couldn't fathom', and 'let's touch bases' instead of 'let's touch base'...no judgments, but just saying...
posted by troybob at 2:32 PM on October 24, 2005

The "everything but angry" example reminds me of one I see pretty often, example: "New Orleans was all but destroyed." (which means, New Orleans was destroyed).

I'm in agreement with the consensus above about the original question. "The least I could do" is intended to mean just that. Anything less would be uncivilized.
posted by knave at 2:35 PM on October 24, 2005

I think when you hear people say this they really do mean to say "I couldn't care less", but just missed the "n't" when they picked up the phrase and never thought about what they were saying long enough to realize it didn't make sense.

I think this just reflects regional or class assumptions. There are a lot of expressions that may not make literal sense to you, but they are not necessarily a mark of ignorance. As I noted, the version "I could care less" is accepted in many places, and people do think about it, and when they do, they construct it to mean the same thing as those who couldn't who care less.


i often find that people who say 'i could care less' also say 'i couldn't phantom' instead of 'i couldn't fathom', and 'let's touch bases' instead of 'let's touch base'...no judgments, but just saying...

Really? I don't find that. I'm from the New York metro area, where you'll find many highly educated people who could care less, but I've never heard any of those other constructions (phantom?).
posted by Miko at 2:39 PM on October 24, 2005

I like to think of it as "it's the least I [would] do [as an well-mannered person]."
posted by zsazsa at 2:41 PM on October 24, 2005

"All but destroyed" would mean, "everything except desroyed", wouldn't it?
posted by zerolives at 2:52 PM on October 24, 2005

De nada in Spanish, or again, 'it's nothing.'
posted by fixedgear at 3:00 PM on October 24, 2005

I think that "could care less" is sarcastic, which unfortunately doesn't transfer very well to the written word. Either way, it's here to stay, so please stop making it your personal shibboleth to tell who the idiots are.
posted by stopgap at 3:19 PM on October 24, 2005

Linguist Stephen Pinker says it best (regarding "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less"): "The melodies and stresses are completely different, and for a good reason. The second version is not illogical, it's sarcastic."

I certainly agree.
posted by ORthey at 3:22 PM on October 24, 2005

Much like stopgap just said.
posted by ORthey at 3:23 PM on October 24, 2005

The "could/couldn't care less" argument is tiring, has been had before, and doesn't seem particularly pertinent to this thread.

"All but destroyed" would mean, "everything except desroyed", wouldn't it?

In my experience it's the same as saying "virtually/practically destroyed." I've never heard anyone say something like "he was everything but angry," and if I did I would not know what they were trying to say.

I don't think these expressions are analogous to the phrase in the original post, which means just what it says.
posted by ludwig_van at 3:54 PM on October 24, 2005

I think that "could care less" is sarcastic

No, not always. To many people it's just the expression, and carries no tinge of sarcasm. I also agree this is tiring and has been extensively covered here and in better linguistic sources. I wanted to speak up merely to prevent a torrent of classist assumptions; they don't hold much water where that phrase is concerned. The regional variations are old and established and don't result from ignorance.
posted by Miko at 3:59 PM on October 24, 2005

ludwig_van: I agree that "could/couldn't" is tiring and I didn't mean to start an argument.

In terms of the "he was everything but angry" phrase, a little Googling found this quote from "Sense and Sensiblity":

"She was sensible and clever; but eager in everything; her sorrows, her joys, could have no moderation. She was generous, amiable, interesting: she was everything but prudent."

So, clearly Jane Austin thinks that the construction "X was everything but Y" means that X does not possess the quality of Y. And whatever Jane Austin thinks about English must still be true (joking aside, I thought it was an interesting datapoint about using the exact construction).
posted by skynxnex at 4:00 PM on October 24, 2005

"All but destroyed" would mean it was really damaged to the point of very nearly being utterly destroyed. Unfortunately that is correct.
posted by sic at 4:44 PM on October 24, 2005

"All but destroyed" - So close to being destroyed that it is indistinguishable from having actually been destroyed.
posted by blue_beetle at 4:54 PM on October 24, 2005

If I said "He all but killed her", most people would understand that he didn't kill her.
posted by malp at 5:11 PM on October 24, 2005

"She was sensible and clever; but eager in everything; her sorrows, her joys, could have no moderation. She was generous, amiable, interesting: she was everything but prudent."

So, clearly Jane Austin thinks that the construction "X was everything but Y" means that X does not possess the quality of Y.

"She was everything but prudent" is not analogous to "she was everything but angry," because prudence is a character trait while anger is not. "She was everything but prudent" means that she was many things (generous, amiable, etc.), but she was not prudent. I still can't imagine what "he was everything but angry" would mean. Maybe someone is experiencing many emotions at once, but not anger; but that seems like a reach.
posted by ludwig_van at 7:48 PM on October 24, 2005

quibble: Jane Austen
posted by Miko at 7:37 AM on October 25, 2005

I've battled over the "everything but" remark also. To me, if something is "all but destroyed," it is not destroyed. Whatever-it-is, if anything, was something else but definately not forgotten. For example, "Hitler was forgotten." "No, Hitler was all but forgotten." Perhaps the phrase became corrupted after trying to use "nothing short of," such as "Nagasaki was nothing short of obliterated after the bomb."
posted by vanoakenfold at 8:21 AM on October 25, 2005

Person 1: "Thanks for all your help." Person 2: "That's OK - it was the least I could do."

This has already been analyzed thoroughly but I thought I'd throw in "Don't mention it" as a response with a similar attitude.
posted by kindall at 8:38 AM on October 25, 2005

I've battled over the "everything but" remark also. To me, if something is "all but destroyed," it is not destroyed.

You're talking about two different constructions. If something is "all but destroyed," it is practically destroyed, but not completely. If someone is "everything but forgiving," he is many things, but he is not forgiving. "All but" only works for things that can be talked about in degrees. A person couldn't be "all but forgiving" and a building couldn't be "everything but destroyed," for example.
posted by ludwig_van at 3:12 PM on October 25, 2005