Language desk
< February 15	<< January \| Feb \| Mar >>	February 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 16

I'm like

When reporting a conversation, some people say "I'm like" (present tense in form) to mean "I said" (past tense in meaning). Eg. "She dumped me last night. I'm like, you can't do that to me, and she's like, I just did it".

I suspect this construction exists only in one form. But hypothetically, what form would "I'm like" take if the meaning were "I say" or "I am saying"? Surely not "I'll be like". But what? JackofOz 01:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googling suggests that at least some people use the construction "I'll be like" as you suggest. I could not find a reference in the OED though. Hmm Stefán 02:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for 'I am saying', I'd think 'I'm like' contains the continuous sense. 'I'll be like' would be future. 'I'd be like' would be conditional. 'We were walking down the street, and I'm like "How pretty do you think she is?" and then we met her.' 'If he proposed, I'd be like "No way!"' 'When we get there, I'll be all like "Nice sun" and he'll be like "Yeah."' Skittle 02:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same for I say? You say potato, and I'm like potuhto ... ---Sluzzelin 02:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, thought that was obvious :-P 'Every time the teacher's like "Learn something" and I'm like "Why?"' Skittle 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, would 'He used these really weird words and I was like: "Why are you talking like this?" be incorrect? Or would It mean that I was thinking rather than saying this? ---Sluzzelin 03:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the "I'm like" and "she's like" in the first sentence above is a historical present (surprised to see that's a red link!), and "I was like" and "she was like" could also have been used. I don't think this phrase has any unusual properties regarding tense. Regardless of its tense, though, it is ambiguous between "I said" and "I thought". In Every time the teacher's like "Learn something" and I'm like "Why?" it's not clear whether the student said "Why?" out loud to the teacher or merely thought it to herself. —An gr 05:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What came first? "He tried to grab me and I was all eeww!", all, or like? Like is certainly more common, but couldn't that be because it has such a strong presence in other slang grammar? "I went to the store and, like, he, like, jumped on me, and so I, like, screamed and ran away and it was, like, sooo scary." And then, of course, there's "all like", and "kinda like", not to mention "fuckin'", etc. 222.158.162.117 10:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to a bibliography that Arnold Zwicky (a Stanford linguist) put together on quotatives, which is what these things are called. [[1]]mnewmanqc 14:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps people are trying to define this too literally. Some speakers may simply use "I'm like" or "I'm all" (and other variants) interchangeably as discourse markers, disfluencies or colloquialisms or even with no specific intended meaning. If one were to elucidate a universally applicable "definition," one could just as easly substitute: "my attitude, emotional state and inclination at that particular time motivated me to say ... X"; or "at that point in the incident, I responded (by saying/by doing) ... Y"; or "I (want/choose/chose) to emphasize ... Z". dr.ef.tymac 16:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of defining it literally (whatever that means) or not. It is a quotative that has been the subject of considerable research. If anyone really wants to find out about its usage or its semantics, the place to start is that body of research, which is why I posted Zwicky's bibliography. I know I'm being a bit snooty about this, but there is a research database put together by language scientists. Instead of speculating based on uninformed intuitions, use their hard work if you care enough about the question. mnewmanqc 20:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: I'm glad we both agree you were being snooty, especially since I never recommended against consulting scientific research; never repudiated Zwicky, nor anything in your post; you critique a remark immediately after admitting you don't know what it means; and your feedback implies unsubstantiated knowledge about someone you've probably never even met. Yes, uninformed intuitions are indeed rather unhelpful, aren't they. dr.ef.tymac 15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm like, thanks for your thoughts, all. JackofOz 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vocabulary

I know that it's impossible to compare English to other languages based on the number of words, but how many different words does an average English speaker use per day, and how does that compare with speakers of other languages? 68.231.151.161 04:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24.175.244.110 07:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I believe Chinese newspapers requires about 3,000 characters to understand. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per day? That's pretty much impossible to answer; it depends hugely on what the speaker is doing. A peanut farmer might get by with only 100 words for weeks, a politician requires many more. 222.158.162.117 10:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading that the average English person uses only 400 unique words per day, exluding tenses, inflections, and forms. Compared with other languages, I think English uses many more than necessary.. The Japanese language is entirely particle-based, using specific phonemes to mark a part of speech's location in the sentence. Chinese eschews certain parts of speech completely, and functions without existential verbs and infinitives that make up the bulk of English. Moreover, Chinese 'words' encompass a larger idea than many English words do, the same way that there are many words in English that function more than one way. z ε n  07:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand you completely? I don't think Japanese is only "particle-based", also the Subject Object Verb word order for the language seems quite strict. Surely Chinese has verbs, just that it doesn't conjugate them. What do you mean with "existential verbs"? Wouldn't "shi" (be/is) qualify? Also, I don't understand what you mean with "larger idea", I read that the word for "ice" could basically function as a noun, verb or adjective depending on context. Is that what you refer to? (Note that my knowledge of actual Chinese is very limited.) 惑乱分からん 12:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're correct- it's not entirely, but colloquial speech is very much based on the particle structure. What I meant was へ functions the locative particle, so you could effectively convey "It's here" with "こちらへ" using only one "word". I'm sure you're also familar with various other ways Japanese would use fewer words to express ideas; a fully grown man yelling "Annoying!!!" on the streets of LA would garner only laughs from the teenagers he is trying to quiet. Also, you're correct, 是 does, but in many cases it doesn't function in the same way as the English language does, meaning we don't use it when adjectives modify nouns, adverbs, etc. (which leads to the ubiquitous "I so happy" sentence constructs in overseas English dialect). I could think of only these two ways these two languages might use fewer "words" than English. z ε n  07:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand, but the statement seems to be sort of over-generalizing on a few specific traits... 2nd, I think some native English variants, such as Ebonics, also possibly might construct sentences such as "I so happy" (at least the similar "He so crazy!". 惑乱分からん 15:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Disregard my comments, 68.231.151.161. z ε n  06:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a bit off-topic, but I seem to recall an amusing article in which an English professor rated his students' vocabularies in units that he called "bards" - if Shakespeare had a vocabulary of 1 bard (however many thousands of words that is!), he rated a lot of his students as "decibards" and a couple of poor unfortunates as "centibards". Wish I could find that article for you now! Lou 03:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's somewhat unfair, considering we only know Shakespeare's vocabulary over a long period of time based upon a series of plays that almost certainly got revised over that period, with unknown help from third parties. Trying to compare a student's vocabulary, based off conversation and a few essays quickly written, to that, just isn't fair.--Prosfilaes 10:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creole French

I am trying to find the correct spelling for the Creole French word for godfather; sounds like (pah-ran). Thank you in advance.

I think the word you're looking for is 'parrain'. It's 'godfather' in Canadian French as well. --Charlene 11:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's just french. --Coyau 20:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English education podcasts

I have used postcasts for Chinese and Japanese listening practice in the past, and I think it's the perfect method to improve your listening skills without being a complete bore. Some of my students have asked if I know of any similar podcasts that teach English (low to intermediate level), and I'm really lost among the thousands of available directories and such.

Can anybody recommend me an English education website/podcast or two? If it makes a difference, my students are Japanese (though I highly doubt there are any Japanese companies distributing free podcasts). Actually, any freely available listening resource aiming at English education would be great!

Thanks in advance. 222.158.162.117 10:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC radio(type it in a search engine,it has many different sites for the various stations) now does podcasts of some of it's programmes.It's not actually teaching but the BBC is often used by teachers.Also many of it's spoken programmes are archived for one week and can be listened to on computers.hotclaws**== 12:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't BBC produce programs for an ESL audience, as well? 惑乱分からん 14:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of English podcasts listed on the Japan iTunes Music Store. --Lph 19:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOST HOLY --- is it ok?

What is the superlative form of holy? is it not "HOLIEST"? How come people say, "We pray in your MOST HOLY name."? most holy? or holiest?

Connotations? It sounds more exalted? 惑乱分からん 17:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We pray in your holiest name" would mean God had several names of different degrees of holiness, and we're praying in the holiest of them. "We pray in your most holy name" is another way of saying "We pray in your extremely holy name", i.e. God has only one name, and boy howdy is it ever holy. —An gr 17:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if the prayer/text is Old Testament in origin, it does refer to the most holy name, which is summarized (but never spoken outloud) by the Greek tetragrammaton (IHVH); and/or the 104-letter Name of God that was inscribed on the inside frieze of the Second (and First) Temples; and again never recited out loud. Other Old Testament names include Adonai and Sabaoth, each with a specific meaning (Sabaoth is usually translated "Lord God of Hosts").Skookum1 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe compare 'this pudding is most delicious' with 'this is the most delicious pudding I have ever tasted'. Chris Towner 13:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word origin

How did the term "mouse" become associated with a black eye or a "shiner"? JosieMJosieM 22:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess, but I would think it comes from the "mouse-skin" quality of bruised skin, not just by colour (darkened) but texture also.Skookum1 22:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]