\jeff{krimmel}

I would think a hairy faced liar would be worse. All people with beards have something to hide.

By MDA on May 18, 2005 at 4:57 pm

First of all, shouldn’t this be a question for Dr. Language Person?

Anyway, bald does not just refer to lack of hair.
Some definitions:
1 a : lacking a natural or usual covering
2 : UNADORNED
3 : UNDISGUISED

Thus, a bald-faced liar is one who does not hide his/her lie. Rather than trying to disguise the lie as something true, the lie is bald (unhidden).

As for the could/couldn’t care less issue: I think (note: *THINK*) that I go with “couldn’t”. But I have a couple of explanations:

1) Perhaps it was initially it was “couldn’t care less”, but people, being lazy, dropped the “n’t” but didn’t notice and the new phrase kept the same meaning.
2) Perhaps it is the *tone* of the phrase that conveys its meaning, moreso than the actual words. In one case (”couldn’t care less”) both the tone and the wording indicate a complete disdain for the topic at hand. In the other case (“could care less”) the complete disdain comes through the tone of oozing sarcasm.

By Adam on May 18, 2005 at 11:31 pm

Bald-faced liar: Someone who tells a lie without any attempt to hide the fact that it is a lie (such as by putting on a convincing face. Good poker players are NOT bald-faced liars. Their lies are well hidden).

Bald-faced lie: A lie that has been told with no attempt to hide the fact that it is a lie.

As with “bald”, you’re neglecting the other meanings of the word “face”: (FYI, I’m getting my definitions out of Webster’s)

4 a : outward appearance
5 : SURFACE: a (1) : a front, upper, or outer surface

So, the “bald-faced lie” is not necessarily talking about a “face” in the “front part of a human head” sense. It is simply saying that the appearance of the lie is that of a lie.

Bald (as in, not hidden by any form of subterfuge)
Faced (as in, the outward appearance)
Lie (as in, an untruth)

Bald-Faced Lie (A lie that is, to all appearances, actually a lie, due to a lack of subterfuge).

Anyway, while I wouldn’t actually call you “lame” for asking this, I would say that you’re being entirely, completely, excessively literal about the phrases. Language is conveyed in much more than just words. Keep in mind that spoken language came before written language, and has many more elements than written language (tone, inflection, gestures, facial expressions, etc.). Spoken words can even have the opposite meaning of the individual written words.

A friend of mine told me about a seminar in which the topic of positives and negatives came up. The person giving the seminar mentioned that a positive and a negative result in a negative. A double negative results in a positive (”I will not not say that”). “But”, the lecturer said, “there are no instances of a double positive resulting in a negative.” At which point, a professor sitting in the back of the room said, “Yeah, yeah…“, the whole room cracked up, and the lecturer got somewhat upset.

So, in this case “yeah, yeah”, when taken literally is a positive (”yeah, yeah” ~= “yes, yes”). However, the *tone* implies that it is actually a negative.

Where was I? Oh yes, Jeff, the technical term for what you’re doing is “nit-picking.” Which, before you ask, has very little to do with (or no longer has much to do with) picking nits.

By Adam on May 19, 2005 at 1:26 am

All of you who are trying to define “Bald-Faced” lie or liar are a bunch of ignorant fools. BALD-FACED LIE IS INCORRECT. The correct idiom is: “BOLD-FACED LIE”. Go to www.everything2.com and look up the explanation as to how it came about. OPEN YOUR EARS AND LISTEN CORRECTLY when something is being said. Americans should be ashamed of how badly they speak their own language, and then have the nerve to make fun of foreigners.
The stupid implication that BALD-FACED LIE is an un-hidden lie does not make any sense. All liars are trying to disguise the truth and therefore hope that the lie is believable.

By John on Oct 7, 2006 at 7:59 am

Actually, I was totally convinced by Adam’s definition of the bald-faced lie. You can’t say “bald-faced lie” is incorrect if the rules of the language can assign it a logical, unambiguous meaning, which Adam has shown possible. It might be correct to say “bald-faced lie is not common usage” or “it is an intriguing but syntactically valid twist on a preexisting idiom which is possibly the result of their phonetic similarity”.

I suspect a great deal of the richness in our language comes from the fact that speaking and listening are imperfect. They require redundancy to be built in and they allow for creative misinterpretation.

As for liars who tell lies with no concern for whether their lie is obviously a lie or not, one needs look no further than the current PotUSA. I think his hope is not that the lie is believable, but that the believers are liable to not care.

By gv on Oct 8, 2006 at 1:52 pm

Someone needs a logic book and the Oxford English Dictionary. Making a logical argument does not necessarily result in a true conclusion. In particular, making a logical argument for the misdirection of meaning in language does not preclude the history of the term under discussion.

Yay, Jeff, on both counts. The misuse of these two idioms has driven me nuts for years. People sound so ignorant when they misuse idioms, especially easy ones like these. What the Hell DO they think “could care less” means, and where in their puddin’ heads do they find something there that makes sense?

Go, Jeff!

By Joni on Apr 18, 2007 at 9:46 am

I always thought “i could care less” came from “i could less, if i cared at all”, which would keep with the original intent of “couldn’t care less”… then, as with most idioms and colloq., things were dropped because they were unnecessary, as the “i could care less” said a certain way would be a signifier for the phrase, and you’d probably be interrupted before you could finish it… so eventually, it just became “i could care less”…

By brandon on May 20, 2007 at 5:39 pm

PS. i find it rather ironic that someone woudl call anyone an “idiot” or “stupid” for the supposed misuse of an idiom and then tries to use LOGIC on INFORMAL, COLLOQUIAL, SPOKEN SPEECH — which is always apt to change from generation to generation.

“Could care less” is an IDIOM… it’s been used in that form in the US since the 30s, at least. I dare say, if the majority of people are using an IDIOM — an IDIOM, people — in a certain way, then they can hardly be labeled idiots.

By brandon on May 20, 2007 at 5:57 pm

To this end, let’s have a look at the following piece from Merriam-Webster Online, which allows for all three usages:

He wanted to know if an out-and-out liar is more properly called a bold-faced liar or a bald-faced liar.

The truth is this: both are used, and so is barefaced. Bald-faced is the newest term; its first known print appearance dates back only 62 years, to 1943. Bold-faced is some four centuries older than that, dating to 1591. Although you might guess bald-faced developed out of a mishearing of bold-faced, the meanings of the two adjectives are not synonymous. Bold-faced means “bold in manner or conduct; impudent”; bald-faced has the same meaning as barefaced: “open; unconcealed”; and “having or showing a lack of scruples.”

Barefaced is one year older than bold-faced; its first print appearance dates to 1590. But the original meaning of barefaced was literal: it meant “having the face uncovered,” either “beardless” or “wearing no mask.” Not surprisingly, folks using the word barefaced were open to shifting the adjective into the metaphoric realm: barefaced soon came to describe something “unconcealed or open”; and then something “showing or having a lack of scruples.”

By ty on Dec 18, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Here is something to think about…..

Is the person on the other end of the phone saying “you welcome” after I say “thank you”? It sure sounds like it to me. I have had this thought so many times because I am listening and I swear they don’t say “you’re welcome”. They say “you welcome”. I hate that.

By Leaha on Jan 6, 2008 at 4:48 pm

I once read that the idiom of the bald-faced liar came from the ancient Germanic people. The German tribes who lived near or within the outlying orders of the Roman Empire were often recruited to defend those borders against the even less civilized tribes from beyond the frontiers. The Romans, however, often mistreated or betrayed these supposed allies. Romans shaved (indeed, a boy’s first shave was a rite of passage) while the Germans didn’t; since the Romans couldn’t be trusted, the stereotype was applied to anyone who shaved.

By Packy on May 30, 2008 at 3:53 pm