Hacker News Reader

Comment by triangleman | Hacker News Reader

The author forgot the other common usage of like, that is, in storytelling: "I was like, what are you doing here?" The word prepares you for not only what was said, but what was felt and done and whatever else needs to be communicated. Unfortunately this usage of like is so useful that it is certainly over-used now, and we need to go back to using the proper verbs. But that is easier said than, uh, said!

View on HN

The Sanskrit word इति (iti), which literally means "thus" or "like this", can be used to offset direct or semi-direct speech (without needing a verb to make the meaning clear). In respects it's very similar to the English "I was like".

Reference I just found: http://staefcraeft.blogspot.com/2010/09/english-like-can-lik...

The author tried to address this in the final paragraph, but I think they completely missed the point of the quotative like. When I use the quotative like (which I do often), I'm not quoting someone, I'm conveying meaning.

For instance, I was out with my best friend disc golfing recently. He had just thrown his favorite disc when a dog that was off leash ran over and grabbed his disc. As the dog approached he started exclaiming. The dog was kind of paying attention to him, and went for his disc several times before grabbing it. I can't relate exactly what he said. It was something similar to "Hey! No! Don't! Don't grab my disc! No! For the love of God, NO! WHY!?"

Despite my best efforts, that quote is wholly inaccurate. When I related the story to his wife, I used the following syntax:

"And he was like 'No! NO! Nooooooooooooooooooooo!' as the dog grabbed his disc."

Had I claimed my friend had "said" that, he could have rightfully objected, as it wasn't a true representation of what he said. However, my recollection accurately captured the panic as the dog ran over to his disc, and the despair that was immediately apparent as the dog grabbed his disc.

Using the quotative like allows me to acknowledge my unreliability as a narrator, while also conveying my interpretation of the events more truthfully and quickly than would be possible if I were actually quoting what happened. A long argument could be related using the following syntax and everyone would still have an idea of what happened, without losing any of the emotional impact that a more dispassionate non-quotative telling would have: "I was like 'yes' and they were like 'no' and I was like 'but yes' and they were like 'but no' and I was like, 'I'm not going anywhere until this is resolved' and they were like 'well OK'."

Anyways, I think the author kind of missed the boat on that one, since I think it's the most versatile use of the word like, and the one that is most easily misunderstood.

That's sort of what I meant by semi-direct speech. It conveys the sentiment rather than the words (like indirect speech), but it uses the tense and person markers that the original occurrence would have used (like direct speech).

It's in the last paragraph. I agree it was strange to leave it out of the rest of the article, emphasizing the "two" new usages of likes until a third was dropped in at the last moment.

It was, like, totally there all along. Am I right?

> not only what was said, but what was felt and done and whatever else needs to be communicated

I think or is more appropriate here than and, which undermines its utility: "I was like, what are you doing here?" does not indicate whether the protagonist actually said this, or communicated it in some other way, or even just thought it and didn't communicate it at all.

"this bad looking dude came in and I was like, 'What the hell are you doing here?'"

"whoa, you said that to his face?!"

"well... no... I more sort of thought it at him"

This style of storytelling isn't nearly as useful as you imply. "I asked him what he was doing here," works just as well -- better! -- and saves us all the amateur reenactment.

Edit: I suspect there's something deeper going on here, which is that many of us have forgotten how to tell a story. Instead, we're just relaying what we remember of our own thoughts at the time. Instead of telling others what happened, we're reliving our own perspective of the experience in real time.

Related, I think, is this weird new way of writing in which people tell us that they "decided" to do something before relaying each thing that happened. For example:

"We decided to go to the beach for the day. After a while, we decided to grab some food. After lunch, we were all tired and decided to go home."

Just tell us that you went to the beach, ate some lunch, and then left. I understand implicitly that you had to decide to do each thing before you did it.

Also, "And I said to him, 'What are you doing here!'"

It's subjective and entirely in my head, but the cadence of "I was like, what are you doing here?" feels so much better to me than your version. The like version feels youthful whereas yours is tired.

As always though, context is everything.

I actually completely agree, I would only use my version ("said to him") in formal/business settings where I am not very well-acquainted with the majority of listeners in the room!

But, I would probably stray from saying "and I was like, omg lol yes I will happily take your money" when I'm telling one VC about my last round of funding from another VC ;)

"I asked him what he was doing here" is not the same. It is not necessarily better story-telling, as I think your edit implies.

How many kids books -- or novels of any kind -- have only passive descriptions of what people said, as opposed to actually quoting the characters' words? Quoting is certainly a form of storytelling, and can often convey emotion more succinctly than needing to spell it out.

"He was like 'okaaay...'" vs "He said it was ok, but in a sarcastic manner that implied he was not happy with it."

But, distinct from an actual quote, ("And I said to him, 'What are you doing here!'", per the other poster), the quotative-like allows narrator freedom in a way that a direct quotation doesn't. The listener doesn't expect the words to be a literal quote, rather, the sense of what was said is enough, allowing the narrator to simplify, or to exaggerate for emphasis or comedic effect.

How many kids books -- or novels of any kind -- have only passive descriptions of what people said

I should clarify that in the first case I was talking about oral storytelling. My second complaint more generally applies to the written word.

This is entirely subjective, of course, but my choice of the word reenactment was deliberate. Often, I'm not told what happened; I'm given a tedious play-by-play of both sides of the interaction.

    so I was like do you wanna see a movie
    and he was like I guess
    and I was like, what do you mean you guess
    and he's just like, I dunno, I guess
    and I'm like just tell me if you want to or not
    and he's all like get off my back
    and I'm all like I'm not on your back

10 minutes later what I've learned is that you had a fight about indecision; but I also got to see a horribly-acted one-man play!

That's what I'm complaining about, not, more generally, the use of quoting as a literary device.

You excluded the main object of the conversation. Even in your contrived example the main point he is trying to convey is his disdain with the other person, how they felt when this altercation happened. your summary doesn't have any of that.

What seems lost is synthesis and abstraction of ideas: you get unfocussed narrative with no concentration on the point.

This exactly summarizes the point I (maybe clumsily) was trying to make

You could have just said, '"I asked him what he was doing here," works better and saves us all the amateur reenactment.' and saved us all the amateur dramatization.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com