‘Like’ a bad simile

As one who appreciates and studies the English language, I notice a great deal about the way we talk. All let’s face it, boys and girls, we ain’t talking all that good.

My observation today is not original, yet because of the gravity of its misuse, it must be recapitulated with sharp and stinging intensity.

We use the word “like” as if it were a whore. There are many definitions of the word that are acceptable in verbal and written English. It does not, however, mean: Something to throw into a sentence wherever you damn well please, just to fill space and give you a few extra seconds to complete your thought.

A little more than a decade ago, American culture noticed that females from Southern California’s San Fernando Valley overused the word in question. These valley girls used this sacred word multiple times per sentence. Thereafter, instead of acknowledged the misuse, the rest of the country adopted it like Mia Farrow adopts third world infants.

An example: “So yesterday I was like going to the supermarket and I like saw this man and he was like checking out this woman.”

Let’s clear this up, shall we? The speaker was not “like” at the supermarket; she was. It wasn’t “like” she saw a man; she did. The man probably was checking out the woman. This is like saying brushing your teeth is like brushing your teeth – unnecessary, redundant and stupid, like Will and Grace. I pray we’re not confused with metaphors here.

Similes and metaphors are the most powerful tools in language. Everything we feel or express or create as art is a metaphor. In fact, any time we translate thoughts into words, we are actually using metaphors.

For example, when I hear “like” used nine times in two sentences, I feel like putting my head through a cinder block, like eating rat poison, like disregarding humanity.

This usage is a rape of language. I feel like the speaker is an ignorant buffoon. They may not be, though that is certainly how I feel.

We have to understand how influential our linguistic skills are. An example: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” Many people call this classic gem a lie. Au contraire. The syntax of this sentence can be interpreted to mean that Billy was addressing the plump intern, as if saying, “I did not get freaky with that woman, Hillary.”

We all know that Bill avoids sexual contact with his wife, so why would we think he’d get freaky with Hillary? These sentences have the exact same sentence structure, and we can extract many entirely different meanings from them. Coy stuff, the power of words.

Conversely we have George W., who talks like his tongue is made out of ignorance. In a recent speech about Iraq and its leader’s tendency to make promises with no intentions of honoring them, the leader of the free world tried desperately to relay an old adage. “Fool me once,” he started, then appeared discombobulated. He seemed to recover, continuing, “shame on you.”

Then the Dubya looked like a freshman who didn’t know he could bring a calculator to his Calculus final: dumb. Instead of completing the saying with, “Fool me twice, shame on me,” our president stood there like he didn’t have proper use of his vocal cords. Maybe he drew a temporary blank, maybe he can’t memorize a speech, maybe he is a poster boy controlled by President Cheney, I don’t know. But he can’t use our language very well.

Say what you will about the ethics of Clinton, he could use language. I’ll say what I will about the intelligence of Bush. He uses language like a priest uses an altar boy.

Let’s just use our language properly. If anyone chooses to attempt to sting me verbally for my comments today, come up with a clever simile, and it will run in next week’s column. Otherwise, we can all sound a whole lot smarter if we learn that “like” does not have the verbal equivalent of “Um.”