And I was like . . one for the oldies?
Discussion
Being old, fuddy duddy and having been around when education was still available, I often grimace at the ever present tendency of so many people to pepper their utterances with, " . . like" and "I was so", plus the 'moronic interrogative'.
Therefore, it was fascinating to see a perfect example of how people used to cope when responding to the sort of question/giving a description that nowadays would inevitably trigger "like" before this use had been invented(?) or popularised.
I was watching a documentary named "I hate the 60s" on 'Yesterday' and in it there was a clip of Marianne Faithful describing how two pop entrepreneurs had been talking about her, later asking if she could sing. As she described the scenario there was a perfect point when "I was like . ." would now undoubtedly be used by many. Without the benefit of said 'verb' she struggled to sum up the feelings to the question that she'd experienced. It was obvious that she was thinking of how, quickly, to express that state of mind/ descriptive passage where "like . ." would now do the job but without the word just pulled a (very familiar) expressive face and shrugged.
It really was so noticeable - the lack of the now common handling of such descriptions and memory of its physical substitute - a real eye opener, almost shocking in how immediately her not using it hit me. It has made me reflect on spoken language and how it has changed so much even in my lifetime. I now wonder if I have been too ready to condem what might be quite a useful - if overused - form of speech?
I should get out more . .
Therefore, it was fascinating to see a perfect example of how people used to cope when responding to the sort of question/giving a description that nowadays would inevitably trigger "like" before this use had been invented(?) or popularised.
I was watching a documentary named "I hate the 60s" on 'Yesterday' and in it there was a clip of Marianne Faithful describing how two pop entrepreneurs had been talking about her, later asking if she could sing. As she described the scenario there was a perfect point when "I was like . ." would now undoubtedly be used by many. Without the benefit of said 'verb' she struggled to sum up the feelings to the question that she'd experienced. It was obvious that she was thinking of how, quickly, to express that state of mind/ descriptive passage where "like . ." would now do the job but without the word just pulled a (very familiar) expressive face and shrugged.
It really was so noticeable - the lack of the now common handling of such descriptions and memory of its physical substitute - a real eye opener, almost shocking in how immediately her not using it hit me. It has made me reflect on spoken language and how it has changed so much even in my lifetime. I now wonder if I have been too ready to condem what might be quite a useful - if overused - form of speech?
I should get out more . .
Similies and metaphors aren't that new surely? I was even taught them at school! Having said that, it would seem the majority of people I speak to seem to get more and more grammatically incorrect by the day. It concerns me that one day language will have 'evolved' (although that is usually used in a positive context) so much that I will discover I no longer speak my native language, and become unable to converse with the rest of the country.
(And no, I don't have a pipe. Or a monacle.)
(And no, I don't have a pipe. Or a monacle.)
Lost_BMW said:
It has made me reflect on spoken language and how it has changed so much even in my lifetime. I now wonder if I have been too ready to condem what might be quite a useful - if overused - form of speech?
I should concentrate more on the written language and learn how to spell 'condemn' before the grammar police pick you up on it!Sorry - I do agree with your sentiments though. I put it down to years of political correctness by teachers not wanting to demotivate their pupils by correcting mistakes and instances of poor grammar.
I also agree with the sentiment, but I've had to accept that language is a living thing, and it will continue to evolve and leave me behind, along with what I was taught.
I'm not happy about it, but we should all acknowledge that we're part of the problem, which has been ongoing for years.
After all, no longer do we speak like thif, do we?
Verily
I'm not happy about it, but we should all acknowledge that we're part of the problem, which has been ongoing for years.
After all, no longer do we speak like thif, do we?
Verily
t" OliverAlexanderV8 said:
Lost_BMW said:
It has made me reflect on spoken language and how it has changed so much even in my lifetime. I now wonder if I have been too ready to condem what might be quite a useful - if overused - form of speech?
I should concentrate more on the written language and learn how to spell 'condemn' before the grammar police pick you up on it!Sorry - I do agree with your sentiments though. I put it down to years of political correctness by teachers not wanting to demotivate their pupils by correcting mistakes and instances of poor grammar.
Sentiment wise, I didn't mean exactly what some posters have thought. I have despaired for years about the over use of "like" when it is NOT used as part of a simile, just to describe a feeling - often of amused indifference, contempt, bemusement etc. Listen to interviews with some younger people on TV and radio and it can be used half a dozen times plus in a couple of sentences!
Spotting the surprising (now) lack of this when her attempted description almost cried out for it made me reconsider; that maybe it does do a job in such circumstances? I can almost imagine why it has become such a standard now.
Mind you, I'll still groan when I hear affected older ladies ('regular culprits at work in their 40s and 50s) use it every few words to seem trendy and "down with the yoof."
I blame the increasing lack of erudition in our society as a whole: more than half of primary school teachers are unable to name more than two poets ; pick up a dictionary from the 1960s and observe how many words are unused today; read today's Times and compare it with the journalistic standards of even 20 years ago.
Rather than requiring the populace to brain up to a level where they can make sense of the world, the advent of systems such as (for example) Flesch-Kincaid readability scores require organisations to speak in the language of the lowest common denominator.
No wonder the nation's 'yoof' are unable to express themselves in anything other than the most basic of terms (or grunts) if that's all they ever read or hear.
Rather than requiring the populace to brain up to a level where they can make sense of the world, the advent of systems such as (for example) Flesch-Kincaid readability scores require organisations to speak in the language of the lowest common denominator.
No wonder the nation's 'yoof' are unable to express themselves in anything other than the most basic of terms (or grunts) if that's all they ever read or hear.
Mobile Chicane said:
I blame the increasing lack of erudition in our society as a whole: more than half of primary school teachers are unable to name more than two poets ; pick up a dictionary from the 1960s and observe how many words are unused today; read today's Times and compare it with the journalistic standards of even 20 years ago.
Rather than requiring the populace to brain up to a level where they can make sense of the world, the advent of systems such as (for example) Flesch-Kincaid readability scores require organisations to speak in the language of the lowest common denominator.
No wonder the nation's 'yoof' are unable to express themselves in anything other than the most basic of terms (or grunts) if that's all they ever read or hear.
Christ! I didn't believe this until I followed the link. If true it is really shocking. The teachers in the secondary school and ITT instituions responsible for training these idiots should be ashamed.Rather than requiring the populace to brain up to a level where they can make sense of the world, the advent of systems such as (for example) Flesch-Kincaid readability scores require organisations to speak in the language of the lowest common denominator.
No wonder the nation's 'yoof' are unable to express themselves in anything other than the most basic of terms (or grunts) if that's all they ever read or hear.
I'm not sure it is primary school teaching that is to blame however (look at the content that has to be taught - supposedly! - under the Primary Literacy Strategy and the very real demands it makes of 'average' 11 year olds, assuming a National Curriculum level of 4b) but the media and popular culture, and the mimicking spawned.
As part of my academic/ professional training I wrote a dissertation on language acquisition and delay. In addition to studying the theory and research basis (Vytogsky, Chomsky et al) this involved a lot of work with children + observations of and discussions with students, teachers and adults. This was 1984 and it was bad then!
Not the same - a less colourfully misapplied descriptive language presented then; a narrower 'trendy' jargon still, probably as always, but one that tortured our existing words and patterns less than has become common - but still disheartening in the level of illiteracy that was accepted for so many children and teachers.
If there was a golden age it didn't seem to exist in the 1980s from the observations I made then.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff