I first noticed the prevalence of "So" during the CBC radio program "Quirks and Quarks", in which scientists are interviewed. Younger scientists began every sentence with "So": "So what we were trying to discover..." "So what we found..." "So what this means..."
I suspect the use of "So" has a few features: as filler, where in the past people might begin a sentence with "Well"; as a subtle appeal to authority, as the person using it might seem straightforward, matter-of-fact, and in charge of the facts of a situation. I think Dafyd's intuition has merit as well.
"So" implies a link with what's gone before. It can be used to defend/promote ideas that might be unacceptable as it indicates that you have bought into the preceding and will noiw buy into the following.
I find the new word "look" equally as annoying. More common now on the BBC. It's up there with "clearly" and "obviously" when it's not either. In important meetings, I always question the latter two.
So @Telford, what's your own personal take on this? Are you averse to the point you have raised?
My personal take is that it is fashionable and a lot of people are like sheep.
A bit like those who start a sentence by saying " Yoy know what "
Language is fundamentally ABOUT people being like sheep. The whole point is that you utter sounds that are like the sounds that other people around you make.
It’s a placeholder word. AFAICT, English doesn’t use all that many of these.
French has a lot of what is known as “logical articulation”, words like “so”, “therefore”, “thus”, “then” and the like. One of the things I notice when I translate English into French is that to make it sound right, you need to add quite a few of these words that weren’t there in the original.
It’s a word to add a bit of flow to the discourse.
What about its use, by itself, with a rising tone as if a question, in response to someone else's statement or question? Usually meaning something like "I can't be bothered." As in..
"Your car is blocking my drive."
"So?"
Alas, yes - often followed by 'Wotcher gonna do abaht it, mate?', or words to that effect...
"So" implies a link with what's gone before. It can be used to defend/promote ideas that might be unacceptable as it indicates that you have bought into the preceding and will noiw buy into the following.
I find the new word "look" equally as annoying. More common now on the BBC. It's up there with "clearly" and "obviously" when it's not either. In important meetings, I always question the latter two.
So look, nothing in your post is about the typical usage of either word.
Not as bad as those hacks who wrote the Gospels, who started practically every other sentence with 'And ...'
Mark certainly begins every sentence with "And," but that is the motif he is writing in. For him, every thing was immediate.
When I lived in Minnesota and South Dakota, I had to adjust to people ending sentences with "with." "Are you going with?" I always ended up looking for a direct object, and I found none, except if I assumed one.
Not as bad as those hacks who wrote the Gospels, who started practically every other sentence with 'And ...'
Mark certainly begins every sentence with "And," but that is the motif he is writing in. For him, every thing was immediate.
When I lived in Minnesota and South Dakota, I had to adjust to people ending sentences with "with." "Are you going with?" I always ended up looking for a direct object, and I found none, except if I assumed one.
If it follows a preposition such as"with", it's an indirect object.
"So" implies a link with what's gone before. It can be used to defend/promote ideas that might be unacceptable as it indicates that you have bought into the preceding and will noiw buy into the following.
I find the new word "look" equally as annoying. More common now on the BBC. It's up there with "clearly" and "obviously" when it's not either. In important meetings, I always question the latter two.
So look, nothing in your post is about the typical usage of either word.
Obviously and clearly that's a misunderstanding of my position
Not as bad as those hacks who wrote the Gospels, who started practically every other sentence with 'And ...'
Biblical Hebrew in general starts a lot of sentences with "and" (the letter waw). It survives in the KJV/AV in the phrase "And it came to pass that".
As does Ancient Greek. It’s just how they wrote. Ancient Greek has a proliferation of little words that are usually translated as ‘so’ or ‘thus.’ I don’t think it’s remarkable that spoken English has words that function similarly.
Not as bad as those hacks who wrote the Gospels, who started practically every other sentence with 'And ...'
Biblical Hebrew in general starts a lot of sentences with "and" (the letter waw). It survives in the KJV/AV in the phrase "And it came to pass that".
‘And it came to pass’ is the translation of the Hebrew wayehi (וַֽיְהִי) of which ‘wa’ is the ‘and’ component.
Biblical Hebrew uses little or no subordination, and commonly used waw to join ideas. (There’s a word for this linguistic phenomenon, but I can’t recall it.) So I wonder if Mark’s use of ‘and’ and ‘immediately’ is a Greek hangover if that linguistic practice.
Not as bad as those hacks who wrote the Gospels, who started practically every other sentence with 'And ...'
Mark certainly begins every sentence with "And," but that is the motif he is writing in. For him, every thing was immediate.
When I lived in Minnesota and South Dakota, I had to adjust to people ending sentences with "with." "Are you going with?" I always ended up looking for a direct object, and I found none, except if I assumed one.
If it follows a preposition such as"with", it's an indirect object.
So, we conclude it provides an opportunity for some people to look down on others based on their use of language.
As ever.
No we don't. We question the use of words when that use suggests that the speaker wants to manipulate the conversation.
I don't see anything in most uses of 'So' at the start of sentences that implies that. 'Clearly' and 'Obviously' can, if what follows is not clear or obvious. I use initial 'so' and it's nothing to do with conversation manipulation; it's more that I've been thinking and I've simply said the 'so' out loud as I reach a position I want to communicate.
"So" implies a link with what's gone before. It can be used to defend/promote ideas that might be unacceptable as it indicates that you have bought into the preceding and will noiw buy into the following.
I find the new word "look" equally as annoying. More common now on the BBC. It's up there with "clearly" and "obviously" when it's not either. In important meetings, I always question the latter two.
So look, nothing in your post is about the typical usage of either word.
Obviously and clearly that's a misunderstanding of my position
It is not an obvious or clear misunderstanding of your position. It is easily and logically inferred.
If you say you say that you were not illustrating the typical uses, I'll believe you.
"So" implies a link with what's gone before. It can be used to defend/promote ideas that might be unacceptable as it indicates that you have bought into the preceding and will noiw buy into the following.
I find the new word "look" equally as annoying. More common now on the BBC. It's up there with "clearly" and "obviously" when it's not either. In important meetings, I always question the latter two.
So look, nothing in your post is about the typical usage of either word.
Obviously and clearly that's a misunderstanding of my position
It is not an obvious or clear misunderstanding of your position. It is easily and logically inferred.
If you say you say that you were not illustrating the typical uses, I'll believe you.
Thanks - my initial comment was meant to be tongue in cheek. For the sake of clarity I was not intending to illustrate the typical uses
Not as bad as those hacks who wrote the Gospels, who started practically every other sentence with 'And ...'
Mark certainly begins every sentence with "And," but that is the motif he is writing in. For him, every thing was immediate.
When I lived in Minnesota and South Dakota, I had to adjust to people ending sentences with "with." "Are you going with?" I always ended up looking for a direct object, and I found none, except if I assumed one.
If it follows a preposition such as"with", it's an indirect object.
It has been a while since I took grammar.
If it follows a preposition it is neither a direct or indirect object, but the object of a preposition.
"going with" is (here) a phrasal verb, and the preposition part of a phrasal verb does not need an object.
If it follows a preposition it is neither a direct or indirect object, but the object of a preposition.
"going with" is (here) a phrasal verb, and the preposition part of a phrasal verb does not need an object.
@mousethief please could you give an example or few. 'Going with' is reasonably normal idiom here. Nevertheless, I'm finding it hard to imagine how a sentence containing it could make sense or say anything without a noun or pronoun to say who or what one is 'going with'.
I've actually never heard "going with" but "coming with" (I'm going to the store, do you want to come with?) was common in my youth. Once I lived outside the PNW I figured it was a PNWism.
I’m happy when ‘so’ means ‘therefore’, not so happy when it’s meaning isn’t clear, especially when I suspect someone is using its ambiguity to disguise the lack of continuity in what’s gone before. This happened this morning, inadvertently I hope, because of someone’s decision in compiling the Common Worship lectionary. The Gospel reading was John 4, but leaving out the first 4 verses, and hence the explanation of what Jesus was doing in Samaria. What was even odder is that both Gospel and the Epistle began with ‘so’ (in the NIV anyway). Having done a little research, I discovered there is also such a thing as a ‘hanging so’, which you could use, say, as the final word of a sermon, meaning ‘Well, what do you think about that then?’
wabale: I’m happy when ‘so’ means ‘therefore’, not so happy when it’s meaning isn’t clear.........This happened this morning, inadvertently I hope, because of someone’s decision in compiling the Common Worship lectionary.
I'm not happy, however, when sentences begin with 'therefore' or, indeed, 'however'. In a pedantic mood, I might also ask to what 'this' refers in the above quotation. I'd better stop there lest I commit a grammatical error! Perhaps I already have.
Dear Kwesi. My apologies for a shocking display of bad writing due and lazy expression. I will give future posts the 8.00 am test. Can't promise to write in sentences though.
So @Telford, what's your own personal take on this? Are you averse to the point you have raised?
Having given the matter some thought, I think it might have been done by people who have a problem in starting to speak. I had such a problem when I was younger and a boss advised me to sing the first couple of syllables.
In the past few years it has just become fashionable
Heh, referring to people as sheep is also fashionable, as is pointing out that lots of people start sentences with 'so' these days. I see both these trends all the time on Facebook. People love to separate themselves from the 'sheep.'
‘Absolutely’ seems to be the sentence starter of choice on TV and radio - I think it has superseded ‘so’. Both annoyed me at first, then I became immune. After that I started using them myself 🙄.
Comments
I suspect the use of "So" has a few features: as filler, where in the past people might begin a sentence with "Well"; as a subtle appeal to authority, as the person using it might seem straightforward, matter-of-fact, and in charge of the facts of a situation. I think Dafyd's intuition has merit as well.
It's a standing joke that when the priest or deacon says "Let us complete our prayer unto the Lord" at least 50% of the service has yet to be done.
Same number as begin with "Verily."
I find the new word "look" equally as annoying. More common now on the BBC. It's up there with "clearly" and "obviously" when it's not either. In important meetings, I always question the latter two.
Language is fundamentally ABOUT people being like sheep. The whole point is that you utter sounds that are like the sounds that other people around you make.
French has a lot of what is known as “logical articulation”, words like “so”, “therefore”, “thus”, “then” and the like. One of the things I notice when I translate English into French is that to make it sound right, you need to add quite a few of these words that weren’t there in the original.
It’s a word to add a bit of flow to the discourse.
Granted but when "so" begins a sentence it can be a manipulative usage.
As ever.
Alas, yes - often followed by 'Wotcher gonna do abaht it, mate?', or words to that effect...
So look, nothing in your post is about the typical usage of either word.
I thought snobbery was one of the main functions of speech. How would we manage without it, we'd have to rely on food, clothes, hair-styles, etc.
Mark certainly begins every sentence with "And," but that is the motif he is writing in. For him, every thing was immediate.
When I lived in Minnesota and South Dakota, I had to adjust to people ending sentences with "with." "Are you going with?" I always ended up looking for a direct object, and I found none, except if I assumed one.
If it follows a preposition such as"with", it's an indirect object.
Biblical Hebrew in general starts a lot of sentences with "and" (the letter waw). It survives in the KJV/AV in the phrase "And it came to pass that".
No we don't. We question the use of words when that use suggests that the speaker wants to manipulate the conversation.
Obviously and clearly that's a misunderstanding of my position
As does Ancient Greek. It’s just how they wrote. Ancient Greek has a proliferation of little words that are usually translated as ‘so’ or ‘thus.’ I don’t think it’s remarkable that spoken English has words that function similarly.
‘And it came to pass’ is the translation of the Hebrew wayehi (וַֽיְהִי) of which ‘wa’ is the ‘and’ component.
Biblical Hebrew uses little or no subordination, and commonly used waw to join ideas. (There’s a word for this linguistic phenomenon, but I can’t recall it.) So I wonder if Mark’s use of ‘and’ and ‘immediately’ is a Greek hangover if that linguistic practice.
It has been a while since I took grammar.
I don't see anything in most uses of 'So' at the start of sentences that implies that. 'Clearly' and 'Obviously' can, if what follows is not clear or obvious. I use initial 'so' and it's nothing to do with conversation manipulation; it's more that I've been thinking and I've simply said the 'so' out loud as I reach a position I want to communicate.
If you say you say that you were not illustrating the typical uses, I'll believe you.
Thanks - my initial comment was meant to be tongue in cheek. For the sake of clarity I was not intending to illustrate the typical uses
If it follows a preposition it is neither a direct or indirect object, but the object of a preposition.
"going with" is (here) a phrasal verb, and the preposition part of a phrasal verb does not need an object.
So you say.
The sound of (finger)nails scratching a traditional blackboard. Oh, wait, people don't know that experience anymore.
I'm not happy, however, when sentences begin with 'therefore' or, indeed, 'however'. In a pedantic mood, I might also ask to what 'this' refers in the above quotation. I'd better stop there lest I commit a grammatical error! Perhaps I already have.
Having given the matter some thought, I think it might have been done by people who have a problem in starting to speak. I had such a problem when I was younger and a boss advised me to sing the first couple of syllables.
In the past few years it has just become fashionable
Hwaet?
Yes and I'm certain that all the contestants on Pointless know this
Goats are better company
Google is your friend.
When I googled ‘Hwaet’ all the articles pointed to it being the first word in Beowulf - meaning ‘listen’ or ‘listen up’ or maybe even ‘so’.
Fascinating.