Conference thebay::joyoflex

	"LIKE" Became popular way back with "Vally Talk". 

	It's sort of the early '80's answer to the '60's 

	"Like, yaknow, I was, like, listening to, like, this totally
	 tublar sound, and, like, it hit me. Like, this was, like, 
	 the fab music of, like, yaknow, what the parental units, listened
	 to." :-) :-)

    I don't get, like, wicked bothered when people *speak* like that. I
    would get bothered if they *wrote* like that, but I don't think I've
    ever seen [or should it be, "I think I've never seen ..."] anybody
    intentionally and seriously write Valley Talk. Maybe the people who
    actually speak that way can't write.

    
    I tend to feel sorry for the younger set who speak that way simply
    because they do not know how or are not comfortable speaking otherwise.
    It gives me the impression that they have either been shortchanged in
    their basic education or who think it's "cool" to emulate the
    ignorance of some peer group.
    
    I suspect it could have a limiting effect on any sort of promising
    future; "you only have one chance to create a first impression!"

    G'day,
    
     I , er , like wonder, doesn't er , like, TC have something to do with
    this? Or mebbe his er like, mate, Benny?
    
    
    Or was it That cat that ,like, hated those meeces to peeces?
    
    Good ol' Pixie and Dixie?
    
    
    derek

    When I was a teenager in the 50s we used the words "you know" in a
    manner similar to the use of "like" described here.  The main purpose
    these _filler_ words seem to serve is to allow us to continue speaking
    without break, even when we can't think of the proper word to use.
    
    In the 50s we said "you know" because we had at least a vague idea that
    there was a correct word and we were really saying "you know what I
    mean," as if to assure the listener that we had merely suffered a
    temporary lapse of memory and could not at the moment think of the exact
    word we needed.
    
    Over time (coincident with the abdication by the public schools of
    responsibility for teaching English) the "you know" evolved into the
    utterance "yaknow" and served only to keep the speech going without
    having to imply that we were aware of a word that might fit (for by
    that time the teens knew so few words that they couldn't even pretend
    to be aware of more than the few hundred they daily used).
    
    In the 40s the situation was only slightly better; the Bobby Soxers (or
    so my older brother called them) used the dissonant "uhhhhhh," which
    meant "I'm thinking of the right word"; and they often did manage to
    come up with it.  The "uhhhhhh" allowed them the time they needed to
    think of a correct word.
    
    In the 80s, of course, no one pretends to know of the existence of a
    correct word nor even to care whether one might exist.  The filler
    "like" is just a pure sound to keep the speech going.  It probably
    evolved from the attempt in the 60s and 70s to resurrect the teaching
    and practice of English (after the great Sputnik panic).  One would
    often hear pubescent speakers struggling to communicate: "I, uh, forgot
    where I left my stuff and like skipped the work."  This is translated
    as "I misplaced my school books and thus failed to prepare the homework
    assignment."  (These people, incidentally, have become the engineers of
    the 80s and now, with the benefit of college educations, write
    sentences like "The test/evaluation of the new/proposed design must be
    structured/organized in several stages/iterations in order to achieve
    maximal non-random, proactive impact.")
    
    Bernie
    

    These old neurons seem to recall that this usage was popular among
    the Beat generation of the 50's. I don't believe it was invented by
    Valley Girls.
    
    This sort of thing goes way back, you know. Wasn't it George IV that
    "popularized" the use of the filler "what?" at the end of just about
    every sentance?
    
    And speaking of the filler "you know", I was interested to note that
    Gorbachev used this or some similar expression liberally in his
    interview with whats-his-name on network TV about a year ago. As
    nearly as I could catch it, he was saying "znaesh" or "znaetye"
    which the translator dutifully rendered as "you know" in the middle
    of his sentances.
    
    Bill
    

	I basically agree with -.2.  The purpose of using words like 
	"like," "you know," "er," "uh," etc. is basically just to stall 
	for time so you can think of what you want to say (something of
	an improvement over just babbling on, what?).  These are necessary
	not only for time to think, but also play a very important part 
	in conversational turn-taking (i.e., they say "I'm not finished 
	yet," "don't but in," -- very important stuff, by the way).

	Now, this *may* have something to do with the poor vocabulary of 
	modern teenagers, English going to hell in a handbasket, the sorry
	state of Western civilization, etc., etc., but it's interesting to 
	note -- as several people already have -- that these filler words 
	are not limited to modern American teenagers.  They are common to 
	just about all languages, times, and societies.  There's even a 
	lingustic term for them -- if I remember correctly, "tag words."  
	Some others I can think of just off the top of my head are "hein" 
	(Fr.), "wahr" (Ger.), "piu" (Ital.), "eh" (Can.).
	
	What I can't figure out, though, is why one person's tag word is
	another's illiteracy.  Right now, I'm thinking particularly of a
	record I have in which Aldous Huxley is being interviewed.  I 
	swear to God every fourth phrase he utters is "I mean."  What is
	the difference between "I mean" and "like" or "you know" or "okay"
	or "well" or "man" or whatever.  If anything, I find stuff like 
	"I mean," "that is," "I mean to say," "as it were," "correct me if 
	I'm wrong," blah, blah, blah to be even worse -- seems kind of, like, 
	pretentious, you know.  But, once again, that's just a personal 
	choice -- as are, I believe, all the admonitions against "like."
	
	Now, don't get me wrong -- I agree that any construction can be 
	over-used.  However, objection to tag words per se doesn't make a lot 
	of sense to me.  I also find objecting to *certain* tag words rather 
	peculiar.  This, in fact, makes me wonder if the objection is to the 
	language, or to the people who use the language.

		-- Cliff

	P.S.  Did you know that George III -- in his less lucid moments
	      -- used "peacock" as a tag?

    Those "extra words" really don't bother me.  The affectation that
    drives me up the wall is speaking every sentence as if it had a
    question mark at the end, and then adding a pause.  I almost panic
    waiting for the next sentence to begin.

	Consider yourself lucky you don't live in the South.

    Re: .9
    
    I do have relatives in Knoxville, Tennessee (who live 5 blocks from
    "Give me a U, give me a T ... " stadium). Fortunately, they don't talk
    that way.  But the "Southern Belle" voice, which rises two octaves at
    the end of each sentence, does bother me when I hear it in movies. It's
    my problem, I guess; they probably object to my upper midwest,
    TV-announcer speech, which is relatively flat and fast paced.

    Re: .5
    
    Us 50s beatniks did use "like," but only sparingly; nothing like the
    current multiple occurrences in today's teenage speech.  It may have
    been used more frequently in California or New York than where I grew
    up.
    
    Interesting about George IV.  When he said "what?" at the end of his
    sentences he was probably seeking approval from his sycophants; a
    shortened form of "what do you think of that?" or "isn't that so?"
    
    This seems to be quite different from the "likes" and "yaknows" that we
    are used to hearing.  These latter are substitutes for words we can't
    think of; devices to keep the speech moving without break.  The King's
    "what?" coming at the end of a sentence doesn't perform the same
    service since he has already thought of all the words and is seeking
    approval or agreement.  It was also, I think, considered courteous for
    the monarch (and others) to do that; it kept one's listeners involved;
    quite like the German "nicht wahr?".
    
    Bernie
    

    Re: .7
    
    > The purpose of using like "like," "you know," "uh," etc. is basically
    > just to stall for time so you can think of what you want to say
    > (something of an improvement over just babbling on, what?).
    
    If you prefer listening to the speech of teenagers and others who use
    "like" three or four times per sentence, then you must have frequent
    occasions to be pleased.  I would hardly call it an improvement over
    like-less speech, nor would I characterize speech without these fillers
    as "just babbling on."  If, for example, you prefer
    
    	Like a long time ago the uh, like old people came here and like
    	started the country so that they wouldn't be hassled
    
    to
    
    	Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
    	continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the
    	proposition that all men are created equal
    
    that is your privilege.  Although I should hesitate to characterize
    Lincoln's sentence as "just babbling on!
    
    > Now, this *may* have something to do with the poor vocabulary of
    > modern teenagers, English going to hell in a hand basket, the sorry
    > state of Western civilization, etc., etc., ...
    
    Who said that?  Please have the courtesy to quote me accurately, as I
    have you.  I confined my criticism to teenage speech and vocabulary and
    to the poor quality of English instruction in high schools.  I said
    nothing of English in general nor of "Western civilization."  And what,
    may I ask, were you referring to by the "etc., etc."?  Please tell us
    what just one of the "etc"s stands for.  How do you justify the
    omission of direct quotes and the insertion of statements I did not
    make?  I am sure it is thrillig for you to knock over such straw men,
    but it is misleading and counter productive.
    
    > It's interesting to note -- as several people already have -- that 
    > these words are not limited to modern American teenagers.  They are
    > common to just about all languages, times, societies.
    
    Who noted that?  Only Bill Forbes in .6 addressed my comments before
    you did and no previous replies mention, directly or indirectly, "just
    about all languages, times, societies."  Who are these "several
    people"?  Bill did not mention "just about all languages," he referred
    only to English and Russian.  He did not refer to "just about all
    times," but to the 1950s, the times of George IV (1820s), and the times
    of Mikhail Gorbachev (late 1980s).  Nor did he refer to "just about all
    societies," but to the same three, although he did not refer even to
    them _as_ societies, as you imply.
    
    If you believe that filler words, as I have defined them, are common to
    just about all languages, times, and societies, that would be an
    interesting and useful addition to this discussion, but merely
    asserting it as a fact without offering any justification or support is
    inadequate.  And falsely attributing it to third parties (the "several
    people" you mentioned) is, at best, careless and inaccurate.
    
    > What is the difference between "I mean" and "like" or "you know" or
    > "okay" or "well" or "man" or whatever.
    
    It depends upon how they are used.  If one uses "I mean" or "okay," for
    example, in the same manner as teenagers today use "like," then they
    too are fillers to keep the speech going while the speaker struggles
    (often unsuccessfully) to think of the best word.  If, on the other
    hand, the speaker uses them as George IV used "what," then they are not
    fillers, but perform the courteous function of including the listeners
    in the discussion and ostensibly seeking their approval.
    
    > If anything, I find stuff like "I mean," "that is," "I mean to say,"
    > "as it were," ... to be even worse -- seems kind of, like,
    > pretentious, you know.  But, once again, that's just a personal
    > choice -- as are, I believe all the admonitions against "like."
    
    If you find it less pretentious to prefer the speech of teenagers who
    use the ubiquitous "like," or any other such filler, to the equally
    ubiquitous "I mean," then you have no argument from me; you may prefer
    whatever you please.  I find neither pretentious, but both to be an
    assault on the ears and equally sad reflections on the speakers'
    vocabularies and on the failure of high school English instruction.
    
    If you prefer the speech of teenagers who use the ubiquitous "like" to
    the clear speech of someone who merely adds "isn't that so" at the ends
    of his sentences, then you prefer the obscure to the clear and the
    ignorant to the informed.  That too is your privilege.
    
    > Objection to tag words per se doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
    
    I am delighted to know that.  Nor does it make sense to me, nor does it
    make sense to anyone I have personal knowledge of.  In fact, objection
    to anything _per se_ is, as far as I can tell, rejected by virtually
    everyone (you really do enjoy knocking over these straw men, don't
    you).
    
    I assume that you mean to imply that I have "objected to" the filler
    "like" _per se_.  What reasons do you have for saying that?  It is a
    serious charge; surely you will do the readers of this discussion the
    courtesy of providing at least one reason for it.
    
    I explained that I denounce the use of "like" as a filler in typical
    teenage speech in so far as it bespeaks a primitive vocabulary and,
    thereby, impedes the speaker from accurately expressing his or her
    thoughts.
    
    > This, in fact, makes me wonder if the objection is to the language,
    > or to the people who use the language.
    
    How petty!  What reason have you to assume that I "object to people"? 
    (What does it mean to "object to people"?)  I certainly decry the
    unfortunate state of those with poor vocabularies and I have said so. 
    Would you kindly show how anything I have written may lead anyone to
    conclude that I somehow disapprove of or "object to" people rather than
    their use of the language?  Reading such an accusation from the very
    person who first injects _ad hominem_ comments in an intellectual
    discussion is almost as entertaining as it is absurd.  I think you do
    more of a disservice to yourself by your misattributions and _ad
    hominem_ comments than you do harm to me.
    
    Bernie                                   

    I'd like to propose an alternative to the hypothesis that these
    "fillers" are only there to stall for time. It seems to me that
    "like", "ya know", and "I mean" all may serve the very specific
    purpose of indicating that the words which (usually) follow don't
    quite catch the nuances of the speaker's meaning.
    
    For that matter, even "uh" can serve this purpose if pronounced
    properly - more of a thoughtful, I-don't-have-the-precise-word
    "uhrr", like.
    
    So, "Like a long time ago the uh, like old people..." is what you say
    when you can't come up with "Four score and seven years ago our
    fathers..." on the spur of the moment. You know you're going to miss
    the mark, so you alert your listener. It's a way of asking the
    listener to extrapolate your true, poetic meaning.
    
    Bill

    The difference between the 'old people' example and the 'fourscore
    and seven years' example is that the latter is a polished,
    prewritten speech with all the linguistic infelicities already
    edited out of it, while the former is sponteneous, immediate
    speech.  
    
    You can't edit your utterances in real time, and the standards of
    written grammar don't apply to colloquial language. 
    
    As was pointed out in other notes, most languages have fillers of
    some sort.  Sometimes they come at the end of sentences, sometimes
    in the middle, and sometimes at the beginning -- my own vocal
    utterances are littered with ungainly sentences beginning with
    "Well" or "Actually" which serve no purpose but to gain me a
    little time to produce the verbiage that follows. 
    
    --bonnie
    

    ...As it were...
    I confess that anyone I've ever met who used this phrase caused me to
    develop instant hostility towards them. I can't explain why but it's
    true.
    
    Convicted felon making a final plea -
    
    	I'm sorry...
    				[ 2 years, suspended ]
    
    	I'm sorry. As it were...
    				[ death by hanging ]
    

        In high school and college we used to say "As it were" or
        "So to speak" in response to seemingly inadvertant double
        entendres.
        
        Dan

    An article in the NY Times magazine a couple of weeks back talked
    about some of these phrases: it described "so to speak" as originally
    being an apology by aristocratic/upper class types who stooped to
    use "downstairs" type language in a sentence.
    
    It described "as it were" as a "Britishism" - so I at least can
    feel that the NY Times is defending me if I use the phrase.
    
    John