>>I am sometimes pedantic about language -- well, not as pedantic as SOME here <g> -- and read something on the train this morning that may have changed my mind. It was the "On Language" column in the NY Times Sunday Magazine and was written by a guest columnist (William Safire is on vacation). It was about the new usage of the word "like," which will be familiar to most of us who spend any amount of time around teenagers. "I was like, We don't want to get there that early, and she was like, But if we aren't they'll start without us, and I was like...." I razz Emily constantly about this one and have been trying to break her of it. The columnist's position, though, was that it really isn't that bad, just a typical permutation of the always-changing English language. She added that most of those who use "like" in this way -- who are not all teenagers, she asserts -- know the difference between proper written language and casual spoken language. She said "like" has not yet made
>>significant inroads into written English.
>>
>>Do you have any, like, thoughts on this issue? <g>
>
>Like, wow, man! It's the 60's all over again. <g>
>
>Real thoughts? I agree that spoken vs. written are two different things. I think the "like" usage in question really falls into the broad category of "filling airspace" along with "um" and "you know."
>
>Tamar

Different uses of "like" if you read the thread properly, Tamar.