[Grammar] I'm like I don't know what's going on

[kadioguy]

(In a video)

Hailey: Are you feeling better?

Her brother: Yeah, I think it was just heat stroke, because I got this job working in landscapes, so ....

Hailey: It's been hot lately.

Her brother: I was working one day and then I started to feel like kind of light-headed and dizzy. And then the next day it got like worse and I'm like I don't know what's going on. So I went to the doctors for just to be safe. I'm pretty sure I was heatstroke because I'm never around anyone, so ....

Hailey: At least you're healthy.

Her brother: Yeah.
----------

I think that in this context the blue part should be in the past tense, that is to say,

I was like I didn't know what's going on ...

I wonder if in everyday English even native speakers will sometimes fail to use tenses strictly grammatically. Does this happen often?

PS - Do you think the subtitles in this video is good enough for learners to learn everyday English?

--------
(At 6:10 - 6:33)

 

[emsr2d2]

"I'm/You're/It's like" are empty fillers used by many native speakers. They can be ignored. So he's not saying "I didn't know what was going on". He's saying "I thought 'I don't know what's going on', so I went to the doctor".

It's a horrible dialogue, full of the kind of fillers/empty words (lots of instances of "like") heard from many young native speakers.

I haven't been able to watch the video so I don't know if the subtitles are an accurate transcription of exactly what was said. If so, fine. If not, the last two sentences should be "So I went to the doctors [STRIKE]for[/STRIKE] just to be safe. I'm pretty sure [STRIKE]I[/STRIKE] it was heatstroke because I'm never around anyone, so ...."

 

[kadioguy]

I haven't been able to watch the video so I don't know if the subtitles are an accurate transcription of exactly what was said. If so, fine. If not, the last two sentences should be "So I went to the doctors [STRIKE]for[/STRIKE] just to be safe. I'm pretty sure [STRIKE]I[/STRIKE] it was heatstroke because I'm never around anyone, so ...."

Thank you.

1. So I went to the doctors [STRIKE]for[/STRIKE] just to be safe.

I added "for" for this one, because I heard he said that. :roll:

2. I'm pretty sure [STRIKE]I[/STRIKE] it was heatstroke

Sorry, that was my typo.

 

[Tarheel]

The subtitles look fine to me. (The blonde switches back and forth between Chinese and English.)

 

[GoesStation]

I got the impression she wrote the subtitles herself. When she's speaking Chinese, the English is in exactly the same style she uses when speaking English. There's even a "like" interjected at one point.

"I'm like" is an introductory phrase. It means something like I was thinking or I said. It usually isn't an empty filler. "I'm like, 'I don't know what's going on!'" means I thought to myself, "I don't know what's going on!"

 

[jutfrank]

1) I'm like is certainly not a filler. The word like here is quotative. (See post #5 above.)

2) There's nothing ungrammatical about this. It's appropriate to use the present tense after I'm like. In fact, it would be wrong not to. The idea is to quote words/thoughts as they happen, in present time.

The subtitling is fine.

 

[GoesStation]

There's nothing ungrammatical about this. It's appropriate to use the present tense after I'm like.

The OP expected "I'm like" to be in the past simple to match the time frame of the activity it applies to.

Kadioguy, the narrator is using (appropriately enough) the narrative present, more commonly known as the historical present. This is common in casual American English. Saying "I'm like" is a more casual way to say I think, I'm thinking, or I say.

 

[kadioguy]

In the context of post #1,

a. "I'm like, 'I don't know what's going on!'

b. "I was like, 'I don't know what's going on!'

-----

1. Can we use either of them? ([a] is the historical present, while matches the real time frame.)

2. Which is more natural for native speakers?

 

[emsr2d2]

I should have said that "like" on its own is a filler. "I'm like" or "I was like" replaces "I say/said", "I feel/felt", "I think/thought".

 

[jutfrank]

1. Can we use either of them? ([a] is the historical present, while matches the real time frame.)

2. Which is more natural for native speakers?

1. Yes.

2. They're both very natural.


By the way, you should not use these phrases yourself, kadioguy.

 

[kadioguy]

2) There's nothing ungrammatical about this. It's appropriate to use the present tense after I'm like. In fact, it would be wrong not to. The idea is to quote words/thoughts as they happen, in present time.

Could you tell me about:

(a) in present time

(b) in the present time

Why did you choose (a)? What different effects exist between them?

 

[jutfrank]

The definite article is not appropriate there. I was talking about time as an abstract notion, without any specific reference.

 

[Tdol]

I wonder if in everyday English even native speakers will sometimes fail to use tenses strictly grammatically. Does this happen often?

All the time. :up:

 

[jutfrank]

All the time. :up:

I'd say it's very rare. Could you give the kind of example you're thinking of?

 

[GoesStation]

It's certainly common to make different tense choices in casual speech than you would in formal writing. For example, American English speakers frequently use the past simple where a careful writer would use the past perfect. They're following different, less-formal rules.