Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Language history and we: the case of “like”

blog.oup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: Language history and we: the case of “like”

#41

Post by bradrn »

gumboshoes wrote: post #38
bradrn wrote: post #32

> The subject [of the word ‘like’] is not uninteresting, but it is trivial. Like is a hesitation phenomenon (to give it status, the term discourse marker has been used about it), and the speaker, to gain time, makes pauses and fills them with like . This is so oversimplified as to border on being incorrect. Even Wikipedia [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Like ] is able to list several more uses in colloquial speech, i…

I have no doubt that Anatoly is completely aware of these other uses of like! I know him professionally. The time he sat through a plenary on the uses of "like," which he mentions, at the very least would have brought him up to speed. But also, he is a linguist, and a philologist, and an exquisite scholar, and despite his get-off-my-language-lawn blog entry, he is quite learned.

I’m sure he is quite learned! But that doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with him on this.

Re: Language history and we: the case of “like”

#42

Post by balfirevic »

pluijzer wrote: post #33

'I literally did a complete 360 and could care less about how people use a language.'; That's all my pet peeves in one sentence. They come across as 'ignorant' as if the speakers aren't aware of what they're saying. Otherwise, I believe language to be an ever-evolving entity. While we can define its current usage, trying to solidify it would be a fool's errand.

> 'I literally did a complete 360 and could care less about how people use a language.'; That's all my pet peeves in one sentence.

Surely you could of included at least one more?

Re: Language history and we: the case of “like”

#43

Post by JohnFen »

avgcorrection wrote: post #31

I actually think that the word “actual” is interesting since many people seem to pepper their statements with it. I originally thought it was mainly a discourse marker (“Actually [interjection], the moon is not made of cheese”), but it is often used unprompted (not as a response to anything else): “I actually like the flavor of cheese”—why not just “I like the flavor of cheese”? Some people who monologue (like in a v…

I started using "actually" instead of "literally" precisely because "literally" is now ambiguous and so the meaning isn't clear anymore. It seems better than doing something like "literally literally".

But I also use "actually" for other purposes, so it's not as clear as it could be either. Still, it's less likely to be misunderstood than "literally" is.

Re: Language history and we: the case of “like”

#44

Post by stereolambda »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #39
stereolambda wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note the scare quotes. I used an imperfect word to suggest a crude mode of communication where we don't care about communicating clearly or on subject, or human aspirations beyond biology and prestige, or emphasizing respect to yourself and to the other person, or maintaining connection to the long term culture and history of thought. That not this equals power is an interesting meme. Powerful people are usually crud…

I saw the scare quotes and was going to mention that in my comment as I was aware you weren't necessarily using the word in a derogatory way. I chose not to as I thought it would be clear enough. Apologies for not being more explicit on my reading of your words. > a crude mode of communication where we don't care about communicating clearly or on subject I didn't read this from it though. That seems somewhat orthogon…

It's very possible but we are meaning different things by the same words. My background isn't English in language, I try not to be formed by Anglosphere in my thinking (as far as it's even possible nowadays) and find the "foobrow" terminology rather silly. Even then, in my mind it connects more with social class, if that, than with a country or region (which is a different topic).

So the thing that rubs me the wrong way, in connection with the OP, is people using intentionally sloppy language in a way that is mainstream cool, more than specific to any group that may be oppressed. I don't claim my thinking on this to be science based (I don't see how it could be), but I think there are hogwash rationalizations of the trend I'm talking about that pose as "science-based" (while being only interpretative) and/or connected to disadvantaged groups. I think it is different from being respected when using my maternal dialect (I hope you won't get offended by using this word, I don't mean to) and this is not what OP was about.

I do think there are connections to the history of thought that are universally available despite attempts of a bunch of North-Western European countries (plus the US) trying to paint themselves as possessing "the" intellectual history. That being said, I do think that how fruitful and useful an intellectual contribution is, is largely unrelated to the power status of the contributor. I also think we are getting into some deep digressions at this point, so I will probably leave you to make you counterpoints as you want.

Re: Language history and we: the case of “like”

#45

Post by gumby »

mvcalder wrote: post #29
gumby wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Malay has "la" which gets tacked onto a sentence or phrase following rules that are intuitive but I doubt I could write down. My mum could use a single "la" as an entire sentence and we knew exactly what she meant, rarely something good.

Bruh

Quite a good equivalent, although "la" is very heavily used and by everyone. Perhaps Bruh will spread to that point, who knows?

Re: Language history and we: the case of “like”

#46

Post by mcswell »

groovy2shoes wrote: post #40
mcswell wrote: post #18

He doesn't mention my pet peeve: the use of "So" to start a story or a talk, or to start every (spoken) paragraph. Other than that, the article was groovy, man. And get off my lawn.

You're really going to hate Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf, then.

You're right. Translating OE 'Hwæt!' as "So." does make me grit my teeth.
Post reply on HN