This afternoon my local NPR station had a program devoted to language — specifically, which words people love and hate. As with most things in this world, the hate:love ratio was skewed heavily in favor of the former. For every person calmly rhapsodizing about the beauty of “loquacious,” there were half a dozen Angry Grammarians incensed by “very unique” and railing against “I could care less.”
I’m amazed by how worked up people get over this stuff. Yes, I have long disliked the misuse of “literally,” dating back to my first day of college when my English 101 professor said the school had so many new student that it was “literally bursting at the seams,” but my emotional response pretty much tops out at “slightly annoyed”. Some of the folks calling into the program, meanwhile, sounded like they were ready to knife the next person to mix up “imply” and “infer.” And nearly all of them claimed that their linguistic pet peeve drove them crazy or drove them nuts. After a while I felt like calling in and saying, “You know what drives me crazy? People who equate the steady deterioration of mental health with a mild irritation over the use of “irregardless.”
The usual whipping boy in these lexical bitchfests is the word “like.” Everyone lambasts the word as meaningless filler, abused by unintelligible mumblers who can’t string together three words without having to stall for time. It’s ironic* that a word meaning “affection” gets so little.
Me, I like like. I think it’s a great word. And I suspect that those who dismiss it as vacuous are not listening to how it is actually used.
In truth, like has a fairly well-defined a widely understood meaning when used in conversation. It signals that the facts being related are guesswork and hyperbole, or that the dialogue being recounted is a paraphrase at best. It serves as a warning to the listener: Caveat Emptor.
Really, “like” is more than just a word — it is practically a auxiliary verb that puts the entire statement into a new tense. Call it the “Past Approximate.” If someone tells you they once ate fourteen eggs in one sitting, you recognize that is a boast; if someone says they ate, like, fourteen eggs, you know instinctively that the number was probably closer to five.
Critics of “like” point to it’s excessive use by youth as proof that every successive generation is getting dumber. The must be used judiciously, to be sure — I also like the word “callipygian,” but wouldn’t want to hear it six times in a sentence (well, depends on the sentence, I guess).. But perhaps widespread use of the Present, Past, and Future Approximate tense actually demonstrates the opposite, that kids today are more comfortable with nuance and subtlety than their forefathers, more aware that anything communicated by something as clumsy as speech can only come within spitting distance of reality.
A reply to Karen, MB, Mom (!?), Emily H:
A bunch of my friends decided a year or two ago that the words ‘Moist’, ‘Used’, ‘Cream’ and ‘Panties’ are the four most dirty/disturbing words in the English language, especially when combined. Apparently this is more common than I had thought.
Someone I knew many years ago (I am *not* going to say “a friend”) decided one night at a student party to perform and impromptu survey of which words were most likely to offend women. Not by asking them, but by going up to strange women and just saying the words in a sleazy voice. “Moist” was by far the most offensiv word according to his survey.
My favorite little grammar related thingy floating around the net is that video on the many various usages of the word F_ _K.
Think I’ll go watch it right now…
I’ve always been bothered by the misuse of WHO vs WHOM, but it was not until recently that I actually learned how to use them correctly myself. I’m not sure of the best way to phrase this, but I’ll try:
If the answer is HIM, use WHOM.
If the answer is HE, use WHO.
With WHOM are you going? (I’m going with HIM.)
WHO is that big jerk? (He is a big jerk)
“I’m sorry but…”
people who start a sentence with this ARE NOT REALLY SORRY. They just want you to shut up.
If you ever read videogame reviews you will see the constant misuse of loose for lose. I am embarrassed to say that I have said that this ‘literally drives me crazy’ and I actually am not crazy, it still really does bug me.
“avoid the enemy laser fire or you will loose your life!”
come on now.
also ‘funnily’ does NOT sound like a real word. I have checked and it is, but really it certainly sounds made up!
funnily?
I know someone that uses “boughten” as you would use “purchased”.
“The car I wanted was already boughten”.
It drives me nuts!
Sure, grammarbots like us often forget to stop and savour the loveliness of words. It’s true. Murmur. Fava. Plum. Ooh, how about abattoir? Language is beautiful, even when it’s being mangled by ham-fisted imbeciles who are all, like, ‘our vision statement has very uniquely impacted the performance outcomes of the abattoir’s human resource department in the first quarter.’ God bless the corporate verbifier and his gift for putting beige slacks on every noun that used to be fun.
Live and, like, let live, is what I always say.
I say grammar is high brow and very much a class system. I remember watching a show on the evolution of speech and the slaves who were not allowed to be taught english. They had picked up different words and integrated the words into their own language without understanding modifiers and what not. To a formal english speaking person it sounded like gibberish but in actuality it was a highly evolved version of speech(in retrospect). I personally think if the point is getting across then a big FU to the person that gets offended if it is not “proper”. For example if I say “gooder” we can all understand its meaning to be better then plain old “good”. So here is your litmus test, “Gooder”, did you cringe? If you did, “I pity da fool”
Boofus, have you ever heard people in the mainstream media use “very unique”? I have.
I find it ironic that literally is often used rather unliterally. :)
But I accept that such unliteral usage of literally is common enough to not be wrong.
Such usage does often amuse me, though.
Modern, proper, language is the slang of yesteryear.
—
Although, I am guilty of getting ticked off when people slaughter grammar and spelling. Anytime I read a paper written by one of my friends, I have to take a pencil and proofread it.
When I arrived in Canada during junior high school, “like” was the biggest change in my understanding of English.
I no longer tell a conversation with, “..And he said…” Instead it was, “..And he was like…”
The difference is that with “like”, you are not just telling what was said but giving an “action replay” so the audience can _experience_ your funny story. That’s communication at a higher level.
“Like” separates itself from words like “dude”, a purely decorative word that I could never master. I always forget to use it. Sometimes I tack it on with a delay at the end of my sentence. It’s unatural. dude.
Cobwebs writes: I disagree with Dorothy’s argument that there’s no need for kids to learn to speak properly, even in informal situations. If they become comfortable with poor speech patterns, they’ll have more trouble remembering to speak properly when the situation calls for it (especially in situations where they’re nervous, such as job interviews).
There’s something circular about this logic. Are you saying that young people should be made uncomfortable at all times, instead of just during job interviews? ;-)
And to clarify: I think Dorothy’s point was that kids should be expected to speak properly in formal situations, but it’s silly to expect them to do so in informal situations. Same goes for adults, I’d say. Informality breeds closeness and creativity. I’d hate to be forced to speak formally all the time. Can you imagine how dull that would be?
I appreciate this post and the discussion- glad I stumbled by.
I’ve always been deeply disturbed that Alannis Morrisette’s Ironic song has not a whiff of irony in the lyrics. Is that the grand irony of it all?
And, boy, will I never think about Moist in the same way again- my mind is officially sullied after reading these comments. I always thought of Moist in cooking terms. Like moist brownies, I like.
I saw someone posted a link to an academic article on like up above. Here’s another more recent one from last year:
So who? Like how? Just what?: Discourse markers in the conversations of Young Canadians
Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 37, No. 11. (November 2005), pp. 1896-1915.
by Tagliamonte, Sali
WE spent 20 years or more educating ourselves. The least we can do is perfect our grammar and use the english language properly.
It seems to me it’s rather arrogant to view one form of English as more proper than another.
In a certain situation, a certain form of English is more fitting. But that’s specific to your situation. Speak and right so the particular audience you are speaking or writing to understands.
The Irony Police are some of the most dreadfully boring people on earth. A description of the varieties of dust would be more exciting than hearing someone air their grievances on the misuse of the term.
Also, the Is Police need to jump off a cliff. You know, the people who read something and circle or get riled up every time they come across a conjugation of the verb “to be.”
People who say “I could care less” when they mean the opposite need to get it right. If you were extremely pissed off at someone and wanted to say “Fuck You!” would you accept “Make Love to Me!” as close enough? I understand that the percussiveness of two hard “c” sounds followed by the “air”-ing out of one’s disgust is satisfying to say, but read the previous sentence again. It’s sloppy and lazy. (Oh! The Is Police are coming to get me! Let’s completely ignore its directness and be dismayed by the lack of Action!)
Like: people today (yes, I’m enjoying this bit of generalizing :-) can’t be bothered to figure out what something truly is, so they settle a series of similes, for some vague “like”-nesses. It is a lack of precision in both thought and language. It is also used to soften one’s tone. So we have become vague and meek. Great. My favorite is when someone tries to describe something and says, “It’s like, huuhh, you know?!” where “huuhh” is a somewhat exasperated sigh. Wow! Couldn’t have said it better myself lobotomized and on quaaludes!
Someone at work can’t stop himself from saying “actually” when he’s explaining something. As he fumbles for words, he drops “actually” into EVERY PHRASE! Sometimes a couple of times per phrase. If it doesn’t drive you crazy, it’s fookin’ hilarious!
I like to drop “irregardless” into conversation on purpose for entertainment’s sake. You know, on maybe a biennial basis.
Hmm, how about the phrase “she is bodaciously callipygian”?
Karen, what’s the singular of panini?
MB and Karen,
Panties, panties, panties – WHOO-HOO! Panties!
What is a coworker and how does one ork a cow? Indeed what is this orking all about? If I knew, I could organise a national cow orking championship or something. Or are people talking about co-workers (or even an old fashioned notion like ‘colleagues’)?
What bugs me most is “you know”.
Like, you know, I’m not sure what to get Kyle for his birthday. Because, you know, I just don’t know what he wants. But, you know, I want to get him something.
About a month ago a guy being interviewed on tv used “you know” in almost every sentence. Drove me nuts, but not as much as people smacking gum.
How about when you’re waiting in line at the burger joint or bank or, like, whatever, and the cashier says, “Can I help who’s next?” and I have to think, “No, we all lined up here pretty much without any help on your part. You just talk to the person who happens to be at the front of the line.” Like that, y’know? Just all, like, “ironic” and stuff! But not out loud or you lose your turn.
Please notice that the offending subject did properly utilize the contraction for ‘who is’, and not ‘whose’: this is fortunate for everyone because it puts the apostrophe in its (it’s?) proper place for once.