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

[fowler9]

I don't think use of the word "like", for example, is down to poor education. I use it all the time and went to a very good school in Liverpool, got 4 A levels and went on to study Mechanical Engineering at University. We have managers were I work that use should of, could of and would of in e mails and that does tickle me. Ha ha.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't think use of the word "like", for example, is down to poor education. I use it all the time and went to a very good school in Liverpool, got 4 A levels and went on to study Mechanical Engineering at University. We have managers were I work that use should of, could of and would of in e mails and that does tickle me. Ha ha.

I have read your essay and have emboldened a certain word. I would like to discuss this word with you after the class dismisses.

 

[The_Engineer]

deleted

 

[PaxVobiscum]

[innocence]After the class dismisses what, Paul?[[/innocence]

Ah, after the class is dismissed?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Dismisses in the context that I used is the definition of the actual process of the students whilst leaving the classroom, whereas the word dismissed can either signify the command of the teacher as used in the canticle Nunc dimittis or the actuality of the post-vacation of the classroom.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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"

Is it just me, or is the use of the word literally in that definition deliciously ironic?

(And obviously, I'm using the word 'deliciously' in, like, the same sense as Lucy Hughes Turnbull is delicious)

 

[Ianno87]

Is it just me, or is the use of the word literally in that definition deliciously ironic?

(And obviously, I'm using the word 'deliciously' in, like, the same sense as Lucy Hughes Turnbull is delicious)

It's not ironic, it is, literally, the dictionary reflecting the modern usage of the word.

Basically.

 

[fowler9]

I have read your essay and have emboldened a certain word. I would like to discuss this word with you after the class dismisses.

Ha ha. Brilliant.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's not ironic, it is, literally, the dictionary reflecting the modern usage of the word.

Basically.

Ha ha! I'm not quite sure if that's intended as a very clever joke. But just in case you were being serious... It's not. The irony is that inside the definition of the 'modern' (informal) usage of the word 'literally', the word is being used in its traditional (more formal) sense, which has almost the opposite meaning!

(To save people scrolling back):

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"

 

[NorthernSpirit]

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.

I type too fast, that's the problem.

 

[muddythefish]

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

It doesn’t really matter as long as you can be understood.

Good luck with the job interview

 

[muddythefish]

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......".

"owning to" or "because of", but not due

 

[DynamicSpirit]

"owning to" or "because of", but not due

Ooooh! Can I join in the pedantry! (with apologies to Warwick but this quite fun! )

I think due to is fine, but I'd make a few other corrections (bolded):

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......".

It's should be This is (Because It's implies that you are referring back only to the punctuation system, not the claim of it being lost)
which should have a comma before it.
happened should be had happened (slightly ironic when you're picking up on misuse of tenses!)

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".

To be fair, check out is a compound verb - a construct that has a very long history in English - it's not new. Other examples are pick up, put down, and check in. And I'd say the verb check out (in the context you're using it in) is useful because it carries a slight sense of 'evaluate' - which is not captured by alternatives such as watch or look at (Hey - another compound verb!).

I now await with baited breath for someone to find the mistakes in my post (obviously, if there are any, they are deliberate ).

 

[muddythefish]

Ooooh! Can I join in the pedantry! (with apologies to Warwick but this quite fun! )

I think due to is fine, but I'd make a few other corrections (bolded): ).

Place where I worked the style was that due should be used only in the sense of due to arrive; in the context of the previous post it would always be owing to, in other words, "because of", or "on account of"

 

[fowler9]

Ooooh! Can I join in the pedantry! (with apologies to Warwick but this quite fun! )

I think due to is fine, but I'd make a few other corrections (bolded):



It's should be This is (Because It's implies that you are referring back only to the punctuation system, not the claim of it being lost)
which should have a comma before it.
happened should be had happened (slightly ironic when you're picking up on misuse of tenses!)



To be fair, check out is a compound verb - a construct that has a very long history in English - it's not new. Other examples are pick up, put down, and check in. And I'd say the verb check out (in the context you're using it in) is useful because it carries a slight sense of 'evaluate' - which is not captured by alternatives such as watch or look at (Hey - another compound verb!).

I now await with baited breath for someone to find the mistakes in my post (obviously, if there are any, they are deliberate ).

I learned all about phrasial verbs and glottle stops from Spanish friends. I didn't even realise I used them but they get taught them in school in Spain when they learn English. Ha ha. Wild.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I learned all about phrasial verbs and glottle stops from Spanish friends. I didn't even realise I used them but they get taught them in school in Spain when they learn English. Ha ha. Wild.

Yeah, I'd imagine you'd have to be explicitly taught about them if you're learning English as a foreign language - otherwise you'd get incredibly confused by - for example, the placing of the word up in the sentence, he picked a pencil up. That's something that of course native English speakers will naturally say without even thinking about it - notice how if you omit the up at the end of the sentence, the meaning of the sentence completely changes - because "to pick" and "to pick up" really are different verbs!

Interestingly, German has separable verbs, which as far as I can tell seem to be basically the same thing, but behave in a slightly more complicated way. As I recall, when I learned German at school, separable verbs were treated by our teacher/text books as a very important part of German grammar. I'm not certain, but I'd hazard a guess that our compound (phrasal) verbs and German separable verbs must share a common origin, perhaps in some ancient anglo-saxon language? And I am slightly puzzled that we have different names for them, as it would seem logical to call the English ones separable verbs as well. Perhaps if there are any linguists here, someone can explain why we don't just categorize them in the same way as German separable verbs?

 

[whhistle]

Thank you. I was waiting for that one. And, yes I am thick. So what!

So many people will not give you a serious answer.
If they think you aren't capable of understanding the answer, they'll post some sort of comment that they find funny, but isn't funny at all.
They also, more than likely, won't respect you, will look down on you and pity you.
That's what.


These words have infultrated British English because of America.

More kids watch TV at a younger age these days, and watch TV for longer than even the generation before them did. As most TV shows come from America, especially those on the hundreds of Sky channels that some families seem to think is a right to have, of course the language will evolve.

It doesn't help when signs or store names mis-spell things in an effort to be "cool" - like "Kool Kafe" or whatever. I hate that because I'm grumpy and it doesn't really help kids learn how the actual word is spelt.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Interestingly, German has separable verbs, which as far as I can tell seem to be basically the same thing, but behave in a slightly more complicated way. As I recall, when I learned German at school, separable verbs were treated by our teacher/text books as a very important part of German grammar. I'm not certain, but I'd hazard a guess that our compound (phrasal) verbs and German separable verbs must share a common origin, perhaps in some ancient anglo-saxon language?

Points that I have noted:-

Old High German appears to be based upon Alemannic from the 6th century AD onwards.

Should "anglo-saxon" be shown as Anglo-Saxon in terms of grammar and would anything so described as being as such only signify a date of commencement of the Saxon invasion of England and not prior to it?