SIGforum
I am pretty sure that 85% of the people on tv do not know what the word "least" means
May 05, 2020, 12:55 PM
bendableI am pretty sure that 85% of the people on tv do not know what the word "least" means
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
May 05, 2020, 01:16 PM
architectOnce, just once, I want to hear the interviewer follow up, "Oh, so you could do more then, if you really wanted to?
May 05, 2020, 01:19 PM
GaryBFWait a minute. The person didn't say it was the
most they could do. The
least is zip, zero, nada.
May 05, 2020, 01:36 PM
AeteoclesI 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.
May 05, 2020, 01:55 PM
bendableI 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
May 05, 2020, 02:20 PM
dsietsAeteocles's explanation is the least he could do. Another post may explain more. If not, it's also the most he could do.
May 05, 2020, 02:33 PM
Scurvyquote:
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-doIts not a ' for all intents and purposes' or ' I was so mad then I literally ate their face off' misspeak.
May 05, 2020, 02:35 PM
FredwardNor "unprecedented." Or "literally."
May 05, 2020, 02:53 PM
jhe888Aetocles' 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. May 05, 2020, 04:25 PM
bendable42 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
May 05, 2020, 04:34 PM
darthfusterI couldn't afford a new car so I least one.
You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier May 05, 2020, 04:35 PM
KeystonerI could care less. After I close this thread, I will.
Year V May 05, 2020, 04:38 PM
BelwolfLeast 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.
May 05, 2020, 05:56 PM
murphmanAt 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.
__________________________
"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
May 06, 2020, 10:39 AM
apprenticequote:
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.
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.
May 06, 2020, 11:17 AM
HRKat lease you got it of your chess
May 06, 2020, 11:28 AM
flashguyquote:
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.
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 May 06, 2020, 11:30 AM
sjtillI’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!"
May 06, 2020, 11:56 AM
Rustybladequote:
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.
May 06, 2020, 12:17 PM
flashguyquote:
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