The use of "like", "basically" and "literally" in sentences

[amateur]

Like is a filler, which is a well-known and well-understood linguistic tool.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filler_(linguistics)



It doesn't make someone sound "thick" any more than using the words er or um do. It's just a new filler word. It's preferable to the f-word, which seems to be a popular filler in parts of Tyneside these days.

It's not appropriate to use it in formal written language, but in spoken language (and text messaging, etc, which is informal) it is perfectly acceptable.

Using literally as a superlative does make me chuckle a bit more, especially in football commentary.

When did it become a new filler word.

 

[Tetchytyke]

When did it become a new filler word.

When people started using it as one.

That's the joy of language, it evolves.

 

[DarloRich]

Like is a filler, which is a well-known and well-understood linguistic tool.

It is lazy. I still maintain is down to poor education and challenge as a child. I never, like, use the filler like as, like, I was educated, like, proper like. I also cant stand the use of "yeah" as a filler. Drives me mad.

That's the joy of language, it evolves.

I don't think it is evolving - I think it is regressing.

 

[Domh245]

It is lazy. I still maintain is down to poor education and challenge as a child. I never, like, use the filler like as, like, I was educated, like, proper like. I also cant stand the use of "yeah" as a filler. Drives me mad.

I'd like to think my education wasn't poor, but I find myself using 'like' as a filler, it's just the way I talk. I find it less grating than 'um', 'uh' or 'err' when I use it in a situation where I'm trying to make a comparative statement, but I generally don't use it all the time.

 

[Essan]

So basically it's, like, quite literally mad in here today. Like ....

 

[Lucan]

When people use the words, "like", " basically", " literally" in sentences, does it make them sound "thick".

I take it that you mean with other than their proper meanings, and it is true that they are often used as unnecessary verbal fillers.. Otherwise you rule out the word "like" as an introduction to some of the most striking analogies in English literature, for example Herman Melville using it twice in one sentence Moby Dick, describing men rowing a boat at speed :-

"... like five trip-hammers [the oarsmen] rose and fell with regular strokes of strength, which periodically started the boat along the water like a horizontal burst boiler out of a Mississippi steamer ..".

Here is Charles Dickens in Bleak House describing bewigged barristers rising for a judge :-

"Eighteen of Mr Tangle’s learned friends .... bob up like eighteen hammers in a piano-forte .. "

"Literally" is the proper word to clarify that you are not exagerating something, especially if the scenario is often used for exagerated effect, such as "on fire", "up to my neck", "drowning" etc, for example :- :

" In the cabin of the sinking ship I was literally up to my neck in water"

Anyone who uses "literally" simply to mean "very much like[!]" is just making a schoolboy howler and a fool of themselves.

"Basically" simply means down at the basic level. I don't see a problem in it being used properly.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

When people use the words, "like", " basically", " literally" in sentences, does it make them sound "thick".

To me it does, especially the word "like" which most uni students overly use. I'm guessing that between, in my opinion, brainwashing lessons they're busy watching some naff American reality import, which, upon distastefully view one programme I can see where its been picked up from.

Not thick, no, but I do find it irritating when people pepper their sentences with the word "like".

Same here, its as if they can't use any other way of conveying a sentance but to constantly use the word "like". Now if they were told that over using the word "like" is racist, would they stop using it?

 

[hexagon789]

Same here, its as if they can't use any other way of conveying a sentance but to constantly use the word "like". Now if they were told that over using the word "like" is racist, would they stop using it?

I think that would be difficult for some people, they overuse it that much.

 

[AM9]

I think that would be difficult for some people, ...

Especially for those who were racist.

 

[AlterEgo]

A lot of people might be surprised to find that "literally" doesn't mean what they think it does.

The dictionary even says one of the definitions of "literally" is:

informal
used for emphasis while not being literally true.
"I have received literally thousands of letters"

 

[AlterEgo]

To me it does, especially the word "like" which most uni students overly use. I'm guessing that between, in my opinion, brainwashing lessons they're busy watching some naff American reality import, which, upon distastefully viewing one programme I can see where it's been picked up from.



Same here, it's as if they can't use any other way of conveying a sentance sentence but to constantly use the word "like". Now if they were told that over using the word "like" is racist, would they stop using it?

I love it when people criticise the use of English language by other people, but make fundamental errors in the process.

D-, see me after the lesson.

 

[hexagon789]

Especially for those who were racist.

I was more thinking those who overuse the word "like".

A lot of people might be surprised to find that "literally" doesn't mean what they think it does.

Essentially it means exactly but people often use it to place emphasis on something.

 

[AlterEgo]

When did it become a new filler word.

I think language will get to a point where question marks become redundant in the English language, mostly because an increasing number of people don't use them when asking questions (think text conversations etc).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A lot of people might be surprised to find that "literally" doesn't mean what they think it does.

The dictionary even says one of the definitions of "literally" is:-
informal
used for emphasis while not being literally true.
"I have received literally thousands of letters"

On a somewhat related note, I have attended a meeting of voluntary staff in the village this morning and asked about twenty people present there if they could define the word "literal" and I received quite a wide range of views.

 

[Domh245]

A lot of people might be surprised to find that "literally" doesn't mean what they think it does.

The dictionary even says one of the definitions of "literally" is:

informal
used for emphasis while not being literally true.
"I have received literally thousands of letters"

It's very much a textbook example of language evolution, look in an older dictionary and that definition won't be in there. It still means what they think it does, way back when they learnt it, but they've just not kept up to speed with changes. In much the same way that smh has evolved from meaning shake(ing) my head to seize means-of-production, hurry agenda has gone from meaning one item on a list to the whole list, and plenty of other examples. People start misusing words and then the dictionary (which is reflective rather than prescriptive) updates to acknowledge that.

 

[Harbornite]

I love it when people criticise the use of English language by other people, but make fundamental errors in the process.
.

Indeed, with the OP being a textbook example.

 

[Busaholic]

So, you know, like basically, what's not to like about this topic? Like, I'm speaking literally here, at this moment in time. RSVP.

 

[Warwick]

I think language will get to a point where question marks become redundant in the English language, mostly because an increasing number of people don't use them when asking questions (think text conversations etc).

The entire punctuation system is being lost. It's mainly due to computer usage which doesn't differentiate between capital or ordinary letters. The other thing that's rapidly disappearing is the use of tenses. Everything nowadays is spoken of in the present tense.
I once read a person's account of something which happened to him a few weeks previous to his story. It began, "So I'm walking along the high street when I see......".

 

[BlueFox]

Everything nowadays is spoken of in the present tense.

Not everything. Some words seem to be used in the past tense when they shouldn't be.
"I'm sat on the train", for example. No you're not, you're SITTING on the train.

 

[Lucan]

..... computer usage which doesn't differentiate between capital or ordinary letters

Not sure what you mean there. My keyboard and screen do, as does this forum as displayed. Upper and lower case letters have different binary codes (ASCII codes). I'm wondering if you are referring to Windows' file naming where "Fubar.txt", "fubar.txt" and "fUbAr.TxT" will all take you to the same file. But that is Windows' particular behaviour - it does recognise the case of a letter but for the purpose of the file system converts them all to the same case. Windows inherited this behaviour from DOS which had a very primitive file system. Unix systems (including Linux and BSD) generally do not do this, although I believe (open to correction) that MacOS, despite being derived from BSD, conflates upper and lower case letters in filenames like Windows..

 

[AlterEgo]

What is it about some people that makes them the grammar Gestapo?

It doesn’t really matter as long as you can be understood; after all, that is the purpose of language.

It’s probably worth bearing in mind we have one of the most wonderful languages in the world, and it didn’t become so because everyone followed The Rules. It’s evolved through common usage and is therefore full of marvellous idiosyncrasies. “I’m sat on the train” is a particularly good example, as the supposer completely misses the usage of “on”, as opposed to “in”. It’s interesting to wonder why we say we are in a car but on a bus. Nobody questions this.

 

[BlueFox]

It’s interesting to wonder why we say we are in a car but on a bus. Nobody questions this.

Actually they do question it. And here's an answer from Quora.com:

The general rule:

For vehicles, anything considered to have a large floor space is ON and a small floor space is IN.

The reason:

For walled vehicles, large floor spaces are considered platforms, small floors are considered containers. “In” and “on” for physical space is all about distinguishing containers from platforms.

Therefore it's in a car, in a small boat, in a helicopter, in a rocket, in a hot air balloon, in a small plane (think of a an old biplane). A lift would be in.

But we say on a train, on a ship, on the space shuttle, etc.

When the platform has no walls (i.e. it is not an enclosure) we say on, too. So it's on a stage, on a table.

Platforms needn’t be large, they just need to be platforms instead of containers. Think:

On a horse, on a bike, on a skateboard. Our feet are like platforms for our bodies, and we say to travel on foot. You can put your foot in a shoe.

Because the language is dynamic, and because it is old, some exceptions will emerge but this is the basic rule. If you stick to the general rule you'll rarely be wrong. Once you begin to visualize objects as platforms or surfaces, on becomes logical too for other kinds of things: on a screen, on paper, on a page, and so on.

Visualize this:

In a car, on the car roof.

On a chair (no walls), in an armchair (three walls but note some people say on because it's a chair), on a sofa (larger surface).

And think:

In a book, on a page. A book is a container of pages.

 

[AlterEgo]

Actually they do question it. And here's an answer from Quora.com:

The general rule:

For vehicles, anything considered to have a large floor space is ON and a small floor space is IN.

The reason:

For walled vehicles, large floor spaces are considered platforms, small floors are considered containers. “In” and “on” for physical space is all about distinguishing containers from platforms.

Therefore it's in a car, in a small boat, in a helicopter, in a rocket, in a hot air balloon, in a small plane (think of a an old biplane). A lift would be in.

But we say on a train, on a ship, on the space shuttle, etc.

When the platform has no walls (i.e. it is not an enclosure) we say on, too. So it's on a stage, on a table.

Platforms needn’t be large, they just need to be platforms instead of containers. Think:

On a horse, on a bike, on a skateboard. Our feet are like platforms for our bodies, and we say to travel on foot. You can put your foot in a shoe.

Because the language is dynamic, and because it is old, some exceptions will emerge but this is the basic rule. If you stick to the general rule you'll rarely be wrong. Once you begin to visualize objects as platforms or surfaces, on becomes logical too for other kinds of things: on a screen, on paper, on a page, and so on.

Visualize this:

In a car, on the car roof.

On a chair (no walls), in an armchair (three walls but note some people say on because it's a chair), on a sofa (larger surface).

And think:

In a book, on a page. A book is a container of pages.

...posted on the internet!

 

[amateur]

It is lazy. I still maintain is down to poor education and challenge as a child. I never, like, use the filler like as, like, I was educated, like, proper like. I also cant stand the use of "yeah" as a filler. Drives me mad.



I don't think it is evolving - I think it is regressing.

Someone kept repeating "yeah". I just assumed they were not listening.

 

[amateur]

Indeed, with the OP being a textbook example.

Too much hardwork having to press the Sym key on the tablet device. And having to switch back and forth.

 

[Bromley boy]

On a somewhat related note, I have attended a meeting of voluntary staff in the village this morning and asked about twenty p
eople present there if they could define the word "literal" and I received quite a wide range of views.

For many the word literally is now a synonym for figuratively and is usually used in a hyperbolic sense.

“I literally died of embarrassment”, etc.

I must admit I find that mildly irritating. On the other hand we have to accept that language evolves and changes over time.

Unfortunately grammar wasn’t being taught properly (or at all) when I was at school in the 1980s so I dread to imagine the standard of teaching today: teaching which is delivered by a cohort of teachers who weren’t even taught grammar themselves.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Unfortunately grammar wasn’t being taught properly (or at all) when I was at school in the 1980s so I dread to imagine the standard of teaching today: teaching which is delivered by a cohort of teachers who weren’t even taught grammar themselves.

I was of an earlier generation to you, attending one of the best grammar schools (St Bede's College, Manchester) from 1956, where English was taught by some excellent teachers with a gift of ability to teach that particular subject. I was also fortunate to have been in the Classics stream where my teachers of both Greek and Latin were of the highest standard and could impart their knowledge to students in a most interesting manner.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What is it about some people that makes them the grammar Gestapo?

The four main areas that the Geheime Staatspolizei concerned themselves with were those of treason, espionage, sabotage and any attacks upon the Nazi Party. You may be confusing another part of the Third Reich that may have been concerned with the purity of the German language.

 

[Strat-tastic]

So language is created by the ignorant. Oh the irony

 

[Warwick]

As well as words which, because of their mis-use have lost their meanings we also have phrases.
Once upon a not so long ago we would look at things, listen to things, touch and feel things, taste things.
Now we just check them out. "Check out this video". "Check out this painting".
We might have hoped for a mention on the radio for our or someone's birthday. Now we have a, "shout out".