![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.26.64.13
In Reply to: RE: Watched, like, this movie like, last night -- A Clockwork Orange. posted by clarkjohnsen on July 07, 2008 at 08:12:00
The word, or to put it more accurately, this morpheme, "like", has a rather fascinating history in the our language.
It seems to us, like, a debasement of our elegant modern English usage to insert this morpheme into our sentences as we do, and as you have observed in "Clockwork Orange." Is it a sympton of our modern willingness to live with abiguity, since we see no need to be absolutely definitive about anything but are comfortable to approximate our ideas and observations with concepts which only need to be "like" what we mean, and not actually WHAT we mean? Is it a symptom of the degeneration of our vocabulary? A by-product of the decreased literacy and devotion to reading we see in our younger generations? Is it is harbinger of a further devolution and decline of the English speaking world, or of Western Civilization?
Perhaps Kubrick and Burgess thought so, in the thematic context of "Clockwork Orange." Alex's parent are, "like" parents, but not quite what we think of as parents from our detached, intellectually superior viewpoint. Alex's Droogs are, "like" friends, aren't they? And Alex and his friends nightly exertions are all efforts to have, "like" fun, aren't they?
"CO" is one of the great cinematic achievements of the second half of the 20th Century, in my opinion. Its stage sets, its props, its locations, its costumes, its directorial virtuousity -- in the use of stills, fast-motion, slow-motion, and music -- it audacious presentation of violence and depravity in a manner that is at once blood-curding and comic, its horrific cynicism about the machinations of politicians and society and their feckless efforts to subdue human nature, are all noteworthy in themselves; but, in terms of the ultimate ambitions and achivements of this film, they are, like, a "like."
Oops! I guess I have digressed! I MEANT to talk about the colloquial use of the word "like" and I actually started talking about "Clockwork Orange."
But, as I began to say, the word, or more precisely, the morphene, "like" has had an interesting history in the English language. You see, it has freqently been misused and abused. In fact, hundreds of years ago, during a period in our language's development known as "Middle English" (linguistic scholars, please correct me if it was "Early English" instead), people misused "like" exactly as they do today -- but with one important distinction.
Today, we would say, "That was, like, quick."
In the old days, we would have said, "That was quick, like."
The practice of using "like" in this manner became so pervasive that people actually began to slur it, to short-cut the hard pronunciation of the word "like" so that it became foreshortened as the more easily pronouced "li", which we spell today as "ly."
So, over time, this misuse of the word "like" actually became incorporated into regular proper usage: "quick, like" became "quickly", "intelligent, like" became "intelligently"; and so, the practice of inflecting adverbs with an "ly" was born.
Is this, like, more than you wanted to know about "like"?
Follow Ups:
And they're not asking a question either.
You know what I'm saying?
OK?
clark
Yes, I have noted this same phenomenon, with a certain dismay.
It's almost as if everyone is asking for some kind of affirmation for every single statement they make. "Are you listening to to me?" ... "Do you agree with my statement?" ... "Do I have your permission to say this?" ... and other obsequious impulses seem to be at root of this practice, at least to my mind.
The rising pitch at the end of a sentence has been, for as long as I am aware, the linguistic marker for the interrogative. So yes, I think your sense that it has something to do with asking a question of sorts is certainly valid.
I don't know if it stems from the hypocentric emphasis we seem to place on "belonging" -- to social groups, to a circle of friends, etc. -- that has been gaining momentum for decades. Modern parents are almost desperate to arrange "playdates" for their children ... to drive them almost any distance to participate in "group" activities ... to bear almost any inconvenience so that other children, a group, will be the center of their socialization. Hence, the soccer moms ... hence the sleepovers ... hence the ridiculously lavish birthday celebrations and the proliferation of Party Supply Stores (a concept that seemed preposterous to me the first time I saw such an establishment: "These guys will be out of business in a month!" I thought) ... hence, Barney the Purple Dinosaur ("I love you, you love me, we're a happy fami-leee with a great big hug and a kiss from me to you ...)
When I was a kid, if there was no one to play with, you went to your room and read comic books, or you took out a pencil a paper and drew, or went into the basement and experimented with your father's tools ... or you pretended to be a sport hero as you threw a rubber ball against the wall of a building in a parking lot, by yourself. There was no desperation in my parents to see that my every waking moment was spent in the company of my peers ... no endless litanies inSISTING that I "share" or "play nice" or think first in terms of how my behavior related to a group ... no choreography and micromanagement of my daily activities by Moms possessed of an almost fanatical zeal that I be "accepted" by me peer group.
I think, in a way, this tendency so many of us have, of couching every statement in a question, is somehow bound up in this group centric socialization so many of us receive nowadays. It is a reflection of just how much we have been sensitized to whether others are listening ... how large a premium we place on what others think of us ... and how desperately we need to belong.
Perhaps it is a legacy of the 60's, of a generation for whom "being there" and "taking part" and "belonging" to the youth culture became the guiding principal for the first time. Perhaps this value, for better or for worse, is being transmitted to our children. Do you think?
And the affirmation asked for usually isn't even waited for! They go on, and on, and...
Not long ago a fellow from these boards was striking up an acquaintance with me over the phone, from Korea, where the call was on his dime so I guess he thought that justified his doing most of the talking. Already I was somewhat exhausted by that, and by his constant "OK?... OK?" So every time he said it, I replied, "OK".
After several minutes of this he asked me, very agitatedly, "Why are you always saying 'OK'?"
Your analysis is spot-on, to which I add the proviso, illustrated in the above story, that the "group centric socialization" has become merely reflexive. Maybe that's why it's so annoying.
clark
.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: