Teach me the secrets of English grammar!

Never use the word, "like" as a filler, to approximate or exaggerate, as a quotation, or before adjectives and adverbs.

Actually, removed the word from your vocabulary. The English language is dumbed down to the point where the word is used stupidly in casual communication.
 
UniversalWolf said:
TorontRayne said:
People around here call soft drinks pop usually. I always called it that out of habit until I heard people elsewhere calling it soda and it naturally wore off on me.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, "pop" is a Midwest thing. Everywhere else I've ever been everyone says "soda," and they look at you like you're crazy if you say "pop." I guess when "soda-pop" was shortened, one part of the country went one direction and everyone else in the country went the other direction.
Click to expand...
It's much more complicated than that. It is true to a certain extent that different groups "took one side" from the full term "soda pop", but there are MANY other terms used to refer to the same thing, in other regions. "Cola" is one, and my personal favorite, "coke" is also used to refer to ANY kind of carbonated sugary beverage! Pepsi is even called "coke" by these sorts, much to my delight! =D

5545Trey said:
Never use the word, "like" as a filler, to approximate or exaggerate, as a quotation, or before adjectives and adverbs.

Actually, removed the word from your vocabulary. The English language is dumbed down to the point where the word is used stupidly in casual communication.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but no. It works very well when you know what you're doing. Using "like" as a shorthand for such things as "for instances" or "such as" makes it an interchangeable term. When you're some Valley dead-head who just uses "like" as a verbal tick, that's one thing. But using it with creativity and intent makes for much more colorful language. One of my favorite rules about both written and spoken word that I learned at a very young age was to never keep re-using the same words too often. Using "like" in place of other, similar statements helps keep words fresh, so you're not just droning on and repeating "for instance, for instance, for instance" and so on. Very dull... Variety is the spice of life!

It has to be pointed OUT to me that I even use "like" in that manner, because it just comes naturally to me, being raised Californian. We just say it offhandedly in the proper manner. The repetitious, empty-headed spamming of Valley speech died out in the 90s, so while you're sure to find SOME people who may still exhibit that tendency, it's not remotely as common as some make it out to be.
 
SnapSlav said:
5545Trey said:
Never use the word, "like" as a filler, to approximate or exaggerate, as a quotation, or before adjectives and adverbs.

Actually, removed the word from your vocabulary. The English language is dumbed down to the point where the word is used stupidly in casual communication.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but no. It works very well when you know what you're doing. Using "like" as a shorthand for such things as "for instances" or "such as" makes it an interchangeable term. When you're some Valley dead-head who just uses "like" as a verbal tick, that's one thing. But using it with creativity and intent makes for much more colorful language. One of my favorite rules about both written and spoken word that I learned at a very young age was to never keep re-using the same words too often. Using "like" in place of other, similar statements helps keep words fresh, so you're not just droning on and repeating "for instance, for instance, for instance" and so on. Very dull... Variety is the spice of life!

It has to be pointed OUT to me that I even use "like" in that manner, because it just comes naturally to me, being raised Californian. We just say it offhandedly in the proper manner. The repetitious, empty-headed spamming of Valley speech died out in the 90s, so while you're sure to find SOME people who may still exhibit that tendency, it's not remotely as common as some make it out to be.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood my point. Nowhere in my first post did it say that replacing "for instance" or "such as" is dumbing down the language, using the word as anything else other than as a preposition, a conjunction, or a verb is just utter annoyance and extreme laziness. There is adding more variety, and then there is simplifying the language. "Like" was already a flexible word term to begin with, so why does it need more usages? There are other short words or phrases people can use besides "like" all the time.

Although many people have dropped the Valley accent, it still does not change the fact many people around the US still speak "like" this:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't misunderstand you at all. I simply raised key points as to why it's a GOOD term, and in lesser uses a perfectly viable one. You said:
5545Trey said:
Never use the word, "like" as a filler, to approximate or exaggerate, as a quotation, or before adjectives and adverbs.
Click to expand...
The "filler" is what I called "verbal tick", but the latter is what I would consider perfectly viable. "It was like this big" may seem like (there it is again ^_< ) a misappropriation of "it was this big", and perhaps you might find it an unnecessary inclusion of "like" in that statement. But I'd find it MUCH more appropriate, because without the "like", that statement sounds like being literal, and for an approximation to sound literal, that would be inappropriate. However, by demonstrating that it is LIKE a literal, therefore NOT literal, the approximation sounds much more acceptable, and even more accurate.

Even as far as the "verbal ticks" goes, I'd MUCH prefer a little bit of excessive "like"'s than repeated "uh"'s and "um"'s to break up spoken thoughts. Those just sound like the person isn't thinking. Meanwhile, something about "like" makes it sounds like the gears ARE turning.

EDIT: This is fucking hilarious. XD
 
Last edited:
AskWazzup said:
Why are knicks and knight spelled with "n", wtf?
When do you use two letters instead of one (exp: "success")?
Why does "genuinely" sound sound completely different than it's written?
When does one use ";"?

Languages suck ass, and balls.
Click to expand...
there is no way to know other than just remembering. english is maybe one of the worst languages to learn.
 
I disagree. It's a great language. It's just complicated as all Hell because of the way the cultures using it have absorbed terms from other languages... without so much as bothering to keep the pronunciation (like kamikaze). But many of its structures make a whole lotta sense, and I MUCH prefer its penchant for specificity that many latin-based European languages showcase, or worse, languages such as Japanese where context and definition are ABSENT from the words being used. English doesn't have the silly rules about applying a gender to objects (el / la, il / la, etc) but it has gender identifying terms (he / she, his / hers, etc) so you can discern details about a stated subject, unlike some languages where their pronouns are COMPLETELY genderless, so you can't tell if you're referring to a man or woman if you bring up a "human being".

English has irritating problems, but I'd still say other languages have it worse. Mind you, Japanese's problems aren't STOPPING me from learning the language; I'm just keenly aware that it has these issue.
 
Hm, wouldn't call it "complicated" so much as "convoluted". English is mostly learning vocabulary, the rest is piss-easy. And even learning the vocabulary is comparatively easy.
 
Judging by how many people consistently misuse words like then and than, or of instead of have ('ve), or mixing their there and they're, I'd say it's NOT as simple as being "piss-easy". Maybe it's relatively simple to grasp, but in that case, it's simple to totally neglect. For me it comes naturally, because the rules have structures that make sense so they don't go anywhere once I learn them. But apparently too many people can't grasp the simple nuances of not speaking/typing like a retard.
 
SnapSlav said:
Judging by how many people consistently misuse words like then and than, or of instead of have ('ve), or mixing their there and they're, I'd say it's NOT as simple as being "piss-easy". Maybe it's relatively simple to grasp, but in that case, it's simple to totally neglect. For me it comes naturally, because the rules have structures that make sense so they don't go anywhere once I learn them. But apparently too many people can't grasp the simple nuances of not speaking/typing like a retard.
Click to expand...

Lazyness of some people doesn't mean that the concept isn't piss-easy. Many people simply don't care about proper grammar on the Internet (nor anywhere else, sometimes) so they don't bother to use the rules or learn them correctly.
And it's especially easy to not bother about homophones when writing, exceedingly so when writing quickly.
Not to mention that it's amazing what simple things too many people don't grasp, either out of ignorance, lazyness or actual stupidity...
 
You're blaming laziness on many things I'd say habit caused. For instance, I sometimes accidentally type out "thought" instead of "though" (ironically, I did that JUST NOW... kinda proves my point) because I habitually type "thought" much more often. It makes sense, me being of philosophical inclination, I bring up the notion of ideas and considerations VERY often. So I probably see use of the word "thought" like a Jew sees use of the word "deal". ZING! =D Joking aside, it's a habit that results in accidentally using the wrong word, and I'd say that's what leads to a great many "your" in place of "you're"... habit. Not laziness.

Some don't care, so much so that they use net slang (its own form of laziness) and translate from that without applying the necessary context- primarily taking the net slang "ur", which is slang for both "your" AND "you're", and simply write out a full word without applying the context that it was MADE from 2 words, not 1. That's laziness to a bad degree, but the invention of the word "ur", I'd argue, is a fine example of laziness to a good degree.

After all, slang is invariably a simplification of language. It's not "going against the grain", so much as making the verbal trip from word A to word B much shorter. Change the 2 syllables of "I am" into the single syllable contraction "I'm", for instance. It didn't change the rules, it just shorted the trip. Good laziness. But all those people who took the good laziness of the "would have" contraction "would've" and failed to recognize that the sound came from a full word and simply appropriated the sound to the next closest spoken word, "of", were making full use of bad laziness.

When people are failing to recognize the structural rules of the language and therefore habitually use the correct words, the mistake can't be something out of habit, if the simple lesson was ever learned. A hard and fast rule that's easy to learn must likewise be hard to forget, but these individuals seem to find great ease in disregarding said rules. I'd say it's because they're not so easy.

Or, maybe it really does come down to sheer incompetence. That nasty little thing that I'm all too aware of, and yet woefully incapable of understanding. I'd LIKE to have a little more faith in my fellow man, but maybe that's just a bad habit of mine. ; P
 
Shamelessly stolen from another thread for its informational value:
Gizmojunk said:
"Couldn't care less", likewise means that you care ~some.

* I couldn't care less [than I do].
* I could care less [than I do].

But it is indeed a common expression in both forms.
(Neither means that they don't care.)
Click to expand...
Thanks, Gizmojunk! This is exactly what I was hoping for in this thread.
 
I notice Spanish-speakers as well as Portuguese struggle with double-consonants in English
I like language, so I'm glad I found this thread before it'd be considered a gravedig :V

A word I often find written wrong is - "writting" :D probably because of "written", by both Spanish and Portuguese speakers, but many other double-consonant errors as well. My dad, a Spanish speaker struggles with the same double-consonants when writing Norwegian, and it is still difficult for him to guess when they apply and not.

As for words that are seemingly very different from their pronounciation - this often has to do with history. Often these words were once pronounced that way, or at least much closer to it.
A word like "horse" might actually once have been pronounced with the -e in the end - horse, as opposed to "hors" (just an example, I don't know about this word in particular)
 
It's would have, not would of. That makes me rage so hard.
I would have gone, but then I didn't.
NOT
I would of gone, but then I didn't.
 
Hassknecht said:
Not to mention that it's amazing what simple things too many people don't grasp, either out of ignorance, lazyness or actual stupidity...
Click to expand...
Don't forget the age, Hassknecht. Getting new things to your head is much harder with every year passed, just wait and see! :)
Learning Russian language including azbuka at the age of 10 was really easy for me, learning German ten years later was a little harder. As for English, all I need is to understand written text, since I don't communicate in English daily. That's why my learning lessons consist of arguing about unimportant stuff as vidya games or movies on discussion forums nowadays, I simply lack any motivation to do it the proper way in my age.
 
Spanish and especially Portuguese used to use double consonants more frequently, back when their orthographies were more similar to that of French. Most of them were deleted simply because they were inutile… ll in particular could be pronounced /l/ or /ʎ/. This doubtless lead to some confusion, so the former case was eliminated. Portuguese also used ss more frequently, which is now only used to indicate /s/ instead of /ʃ/.

Why are some orthographies conservative whilst others aren’t? Probably because they make it more facile to read older works, though other factors could be involved, such as apathy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top