Comments on: So . . .

By: A.J. Sutter

A.J. Sutter — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:15:54 +0000

I’m glad Larry has given the spoken language a reprieve. In so doing, he’s spared a Yiddishism that fairly drips with connotative meaning (though when appropriate, the original “Nu?” is preferable), e.g.:

Q: Hi, how are you?
A: So, how should I be?

By: Lawrence Cunningham

Lawrence Cunningham — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:46:33 +0000

Dave: Fair enough. I’d be happy to concentrate on the written rather than oral context.

Patrick: Thanks for the link. I’d likewise be happy to concentrate on the manifest problem of overuse of so to begin a sentence, in the usage I describe, than rigid adherence to a rule banning so to begin a sentence.

By: Patrick S. O'Donnell

Patrick S. O'Donnell — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:42:45 +0000

I side with Rob Heverly at the Faculty Lounge on this one:

[....]
Persuasive to me on this point, however, is this entry from the Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style:

So. A. Beginning Sentences with.
Like And and But, So is a good word for beginning a sentence. Each of these three is the informal equivalent of the heavier and longer conjunctive adverb (Additionally, However, and Consequently or Therefore). Rhetoric, not grammar, is what counts here. The shorter word affords a brisker pace—e.g.: “Under a state law enacted last year, prisoners must serve at least 85 percent of their sentences, but the state Supreme Court has ruled that the change cannot be applied retroactively. So Mark Brown is out walking around” (Lancaster New Era).

The Oxford English Dictionary has an entry for “so” that appears to approve of its use at the start of a sentence, “5. c. An introductory particle,” with the example, “So, let me see: my apron.” Another definition (10.b.) declares “so” can be used as “an introductory particle, without a preceding statement (but freq. implying one).” Given my reading, I don’t think starting a sentence with the word “so” breaks any clear rule of grammar or usage. [....]

For Larry’s point, if we think of it more as “use words when you mean to use words, or else even good words can be used superfluously,” I’d agree. As an argument against the word “so” as a way to start sentences, I don’t think I do.

See: http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2009/09/so-the-sequal.html

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:11:19 +0000

Big difference between spoken and written language. In written language, we can strive for parsimony of expression because we can work on crafting language through the editing process. In spoken language, we lack this opportunity. Moreover, many words (like “so” or “well”) aren’t really uttered to convey denotative meaning but to connote something (e.g., deference, courtesy). These words may also be verbal placeholders used while the speaker pauses to think. I admire people whose speech sounds like they’re reading a well-written book, but I’m not one of them, and I’m pretty sympathetic to people who share this shortcoming. Finally, I wonder whether we want verbal speech to approximate formal written English. Perhaps that would be boring. There may well be appealing advantages to having speech match the informal and spontaneous character of daily life rather than the more regimented norms of written discourse.

By: poet

poet — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:47:33 +0000

Beowulf is poetry.

By: BDG

BDG — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:05:35 +0000

So, Seamus Heaney translates the opening word of Beowulf, “Hwaet,” as “So.” For him, it’s a way of centering the listener on the world of the story — “an exclamation calling for immediate attention.”

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/beowulf/introbeowulf.htm

In another interview (which I can’t find a link to right now), he relates how the realization that “hwaet” could be translated as “So” was what convinced him to translate the whole poem.

A powerful word, in other words. Not to be abandoned. But maybe also not to be overused.