
Hitchens examines the, like, unstoppable onslaught of "like." - robg
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/01/hitchens-like-201001
======
Luc
'This.'

That is my current annoyance. I don't know where it started, but since a few
weeks 'this' seems to be turning up in more and more places. I really can't
parse it, but I think it means agreement with the previous comment, sort of
like an upvote.

It bugs the hell out of me.

Random example: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=875816>

~~~
seiji
Basically: <http://qcjeph.livejournal.com/110229.html>

Best I can figure, people just saying "This" mean "I agree with your above
point, and I would like to see it expressed more often. Let me lend my support
to you in spreading your ideas."

~~~
roc
"I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter".

Honestly it doesn't bother me. It's just a modernization of the "hear, hear"
sentiment.

------
foldr
I'm not really seeing the point of this article. I had already noticed that
people are saying "like" a lot, and Hitchens doesn't do anything beyond making
this observation. And he really _can't_ do anything beyond that because he
doesn't know anything about language, language change or syntax. (Although to
be fair, these are not normally considered necessary qualifications for
writing on this subject.)

Anyone who's actually interested in the grammar of "like" would be better off
reading something by someone who knows what they are talking about. E.g. this:
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/454820>

~~~
gruseom
_Hitchens doesn't do anything beyond making this observation_

I don't think that's fair. He wove a lot of observations into the piece.

Hitchens is a man of letters, not an academic linguist. He carries on that
tradition as well as anyone, and while I disagree with him about a lot of
things (who, besides him, doesn't?), boy oh boy can he write.

~~~
foldr
>He wove a lot of observations into the piece.

In what sense were they "observations"? I did see a lot of assertions about
people's use of language that weren't backed up by any data, but I didn't see
any observations.

>Hitchens is a man of letters, not an academic linguist.

I guess my question would be whether you'd be equally happy if he wrote in the
same style about (say) physics, geology or programming. Is there something
special about language that makes it unnecessary for commentators to know
anything about their subject?

And really, the article is about _like_ , for goodness sake. There are
literally thousands of grumpy, contentless articles of this sort written over
the past couple decades.

------
RyanMcGreal
Grampa wants you to, like, get off his lawn.

Also:

> The restoration of the word 'as,' which isn’t that hard a word to master,
> along with 'such as,' would also be a help in varying the national lingo.

Instantly reminded me of this:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww>

> Everywhere, like, such as.

~~~
robg
The thing is: I submitted a bunch of interesting (to me) links this morning
and this is the one to get front-page attention. I don't understand the
difference. Indeed, this seemed to me to be the most superficial among them.
But with my wife and I recently wondering how "like" entered our own speech
patterns, it interested me.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
I can't comment on the collective voting pattern on HN, but my objection to
Hitchens' piece is that he buries what might have been an interesting
etymology of "like" under a mountain of prescriptive humbug.

~~~
robg
Fair enough. But that is Hitchens. You didn't have to click the link to know
that's his MO.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
Ah, Hitchens. The right wing can have him. :)

------
pavel_lishin
I know that it's been a full decade since the 90's, but you can't just pull
out an old article and recycle it like that.

What next? The danger of hippies? The threat of rock'n'roll?

------
jvdh
Overheard in Pompei (Italy), one american teens describing the scene of the
ruins to another: "It's like like like like."

(Yes, I am serious, and so was he)

~~~
kilian
Somehow this reminds me of "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo
Buffalo buffalo"
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo))
which I also can't wrap my head around :)

~~~
roc
Is that that that that you were talking about?

~~~
philwelch
Wouldn't the sentence 'I want to put two hyphens between the words Fish and
And, and And and Chips in my Fish-And-Chips sign' have been clearer if
quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and between Fish and and, and and
and And, and And and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and Chips,
and also after Chips?

------
dgabriel
Reminds me of this spoken word piece from Def Poetry Jam.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmLE2bliXCI>

