SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    I am pretty sure that 85% of the people on tv do not know what the word "least" means
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
I am pretty sure that 85% of the people on tv do not know what the word "least" means Login/Join 
Member
posted
or when to use the word "least".

A dozen times this week , I've heard tv /movie people say "it's the least we can do" or It's the least I could do".

After the 5th time that they chose this phrase , it started bugging me.

A. raising $750,000 for a charity ,is now where near the least you could do.

B. why would you go on tv and tell people that your absolute least is what you hope to achieve.

C. if you have $111,000,000. in the bank , why would you brag about donating your time? and say it's the least I could do ,
How is that inspiring people ?

Do they want people at home to think about what is the least they could do ?

it's just annoying and stupid, stop saying that when it does not apply





Safety, Situational Awareness and proficiency.



Neck Ties, Hats and ammo brass, Never ,ever touch'em w/o asking first
 
Posts: 55327 | Location: Henry County , Il | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Optimistic Cynic
Picture of architect
posted Hide Post
Once, just once, I want to hear the interviewer follow up, "Oh, so you could do more then, if you really wanted to?
 
Posts: 6945 | Location: NoVA | Registered: July 22, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
That's just the
Flomax talking
Picture of GaryBF
posted Hide Post
Wait a minute. The person didn't say it was the most they could do. The least is zip, zero, nada.
 
Posts: 11875 | Location: St. Louis, Missouri | Registered: February 04, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
eh-TEE-oh-clez
Picture of Aeteocles
posted Hide Post
I think the usage is correct.

They are saying that, because of the circumstances, the minimum threshold of what they would consider an acceptable response has been raised.

For instance, if a stranger asked me for $5, my minimum acceptable response is to tell that person to fuck off.

If, however, that stranger chased after me to return my wallet I had dropped, my minimum acceptable response is now RAISED so that the "fuck off" is now a "thank you." That is now the LEAST I can do by my own standards.

So, if someone donated $75k and said it's the least they can do--they aren't saying that they aren't technically capable of doing less, they are saying that the $75k is now the minimum of what they find acceptable for their situation.

The purpose is deflect praise for one's generosity. By saying that such and such an act of kindness is the least one could do, that person is saying that it was no trouble, that he/she wouldn't feel right about doing less given the circumstances.
 
Posts: 13067 | Location: Orange County, California | Registered: May 19, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I don't understand that at all.





Safety, Situational Awareness and proficiency.



Neck Ties, Hats and ammo brass, Never ,ever touch'em w/o asking first
 
Posts: 55327 | Location: Henry County , Il | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of dsiets
posted Hide Post
Aeteocles's explanation is the least he could do. Another post may explain more. If not, it's also the most he could do.
 
Posts: 7541 | Location: MI | Registered: May 22, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aeteocles:
I think the usage is correct.

They are saying that, because of the circumstances, the minimum threshold of what they would consider an acceptable response has been raised.

For instance, if a stranger asked me for $5, my minimum acceptable response is to tell that person to fuck off.

If, however, that stranger chased after me to return my wallet I had dropped, my minimum acceptable response is now RAISED so that the "fuck off" is now a "thank you." That is now the LEAST I can do by my own standards.

So, if someone donated $75k and said it's the least they can do--they aren't saying that they aren't technically capable of doing less, they are saying that the $75k is now the minimum of what they find acceptable for their situation.

The purpose is deflect praise for one's generosity. By saying that such and such an act of kindness is the least one could do, that person is saying that it was no trouble, that he/she wouldn't feel right about doing less given the circumstances.


Correct, it's a common and generally accepted idiom.

https://dictionary.cambridge.o...s-the-least-i-can-do

Its not a ' for all intents and purposes' or ' I was so mad then I literally ate their face off' misspeak.
 
Posts: 3468 | Registered: January 27, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Nor "unprecedented." Or "literally."
 
Posts: 17323 | Location: Lexington, KY | Registered: October 15, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
Aetocles' explanation of this phrase is right, and what everyone means by it.

It is not, and never has been, intended to be taken literally. It means, just as he explained; "Under the circumstances, it was the least I could do and still be within the bounds of good behavior."

It is a figure of speech.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 53414 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
42 years , That's how long it's taken me to find out that they don't mean what people are saying. Geez, I need to start another thread , asking about other " sayings" that are misnomer's . Chaulk this up to the second thing that I've learned in 2020.





Safety, Situational Awareness and proficiency.



Neck Ties, Hats and ammo brass, Never ,ever touch'em w/o asking first
 
Posts: 55327 | Location: Henry County , Il | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
delicately calloused
Picture of darthfuster
posted Hide Post
I couldn't afford a new car so I least one. Big Grin



You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier
 
Posts: 30003 | Location: Norris Lake, TN | Registered: May 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Keystoner
posted Hide Post
I could care less. After I close this thread, I will.



Year V
 
Posts: 2694 | Registered: November 05, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Barbarian at the Gate
Picture of Belwolf
posted Hide Post
Least of all...



“Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present Generation to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.”
― John Adams

"Fire can be our friend; whether it's toasting marshmallows, or raining down on Charlie."
- Principal Skinner.


 
Posts: 4401 | Location: Thonotosassa, FL | Registered: February 02, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
At least it's arguably correct as a figure of speech, rather than intended as a literal statement.

What really infuriates me is when everyone uses "decimate" as if it meant to completely wipe out something - as opposed to destroying 10% of it.

Literally drives me nuts. Wink


__________________________
"Sooner or later, wherever people go, there's the law. And sooner or later, they find out that God's already been there." -- John Wayne as Chisum
 
Posts: 638 | Location: Kentucky | Registered: September 20, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Experienced Slacker
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by murphman:
At least it's arguably correct as a figure of speech, rather than intended as a literal statement.

What really infuriates me is when everyone uses "decimate" as if it meant to completely wipe out something - as opposed to destroying 10% of it.

Literally drives me nuts. Wink


You too? That's bugged me for ages. I think they get it confused with exterminate somehow.

Well I got news, Daleks don't settle for 10% enemy reduction...never have, never will. Big Grin
 
Posts: 7550 | Registered: May 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Thank you
Very little
Picture of HRK
posted Hide Post
at lease you got it of your chess
 
Posts: 24667 | Location: Gunshine State | Registered: November 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Muzzle flash
aficionado
Picture of flashguy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by murphman:
At least it's arguably correct as a figure of speech, rather than intended as a literal statement.

What really infuriates me is when everyone uses "decimate" as if it meant to completely wipe out something - as opposed to destroying 10% of it.

Literally drives me nuts. Wink
That is one of my pet peeves, too! I cringe every time I hear it.

quote:
Originally posted by Keystoner:
I could care less. After I close this thread, I will.
And there is another.

flashguy




Texan by choice, not accident of birth
 
Posts: 27911 | Location: Dallas, TX | Registered: May 08, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
goodheart
Picture of sjtill
posted Hide Post
I’ve learned a lot at SigForum, including that “decimate” means “reduce by 10%.
Or maybe it means a girl friend who is 10% shorter. I don’t know.


_________________________
“Remember, remember the fifth of November!"
 
Posts: 18626 | Location: One hop from Paradise | Registered: July 27, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I will get by
Picture of Rustyblade
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aeteocles:
I think the usage is correct.

They are saying that, because of the circumstances, the minimum threshold of what they would consider an acceptable response has been raised.
.
.
The purpose is deflect praise for one's generosity. By saying that such and such an act of kindness is the least one could do, that person is saying that it was no trouble, that he/she wouldn't feel right about doing less given the circumstances.


I am with Aeteocles -- However, I see gray in pret-near everything (even a coin has 3 sides) and can argue both versions depending on context. As an aside, I have yet to take to the expression No Problem.
I realize it is the Now Generations version of Sure or Okay.... but it sounds wrong to my vintage ears.


Do not necessarily attribute someone's nasty or inappropriate actions as intended when it may be explained by ignorance or stupidity.
 
Posts: 1291 | Location: Delray Beach | Registered: February 21, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Muzzle flash
aficionado
Picture of flashguy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rustyblade:
I have yet to take to the expression No Problem.
I realize it is the Now Generations version of Sure or Okay.... but it sounds wrong to my vintage ears.
I have always assumed it was the English version of the Spanish "por nada" ("for nothing"), which is how they respond to a thank you. Myself, I prefer the more traditional "you're welcome" or CFA's "my pleasure".

"No problem" (or "pro nada") dismisses the act as if not important, and I think that is wrong. "You're welcome" (or "my pleasure") signifies that there was meaning and intent and should not be dismissed.

flashguy




Texan by choice, not accident of birth
 
Posts: 27911 | Location: Dallas, TX | Registered: May 08, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    I am pretty sure that 85% of the people on tv do not know what the word "least" means

© SIGforum 2024