# starting sentences with the word "so"......



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

So, how many of you are also annoyed by this...


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Are you refering to the mostly-spoken habit of using "so" as a generic transition, or to written sentences that begin with a word signalling a causal connection?

If the former, I notice it, too. I notice it in my own speech, not just the speech of others. It has become so prevalent over the past 20 years (I first noticed it in college about two decades ago), it's easy to be drawn in. 

That said, despite my initial skepticism of this usage, I'm not sure it's wrong. One of the traditional uses of "so" has been, in storytelling or other narratives, to simply introduce the next thing that happened, without necessarily requiring that there be a causal connection. I think that's pretty close to the way I hear it used to start sentences. By the way, definitions and uses of the word "so" go on for PAGES in the OED. It's one of those little words with a jillion different meanings.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I'm still getting over "absolutely" as something to say when one has nothing to say.

But at the end of the day, it is what it is!!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

People who pepper their speech with extraneous use of 'actually' should be taken out the back and shot in the head. 

People who begin a sentence with 'I' and end it with 'me' should be taken out the back roughed up a little and then shot in the head. 

People who mention that they are 'on the train' when speaking into their mobile phones whilst on the train should have the phone inserted internally, be taken out the back, roughed up a little, then shot in the head.

It may seem unneccesarily cruel but these people need to be made example of. :icon_smile:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Shaver said:


> People who pepper their speech with extraneous use of 'actually' should be taken out the back and shot in the head.


Ditto 'Basically'


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> People who begin a sentence with 'I' and end it with 'me' should be taken out the back roughed up a little and then shot in the head.


??? I want you to hand the ball to me. What's objectionable about that?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^LOL.
.............and the answer is; "So, just shoot me!"


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> People who pepper their speech with extraneous use of 'actually' should be taken out the back and shot in the head.


You mean, _like, "literally"_ shot in the head??


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> You mean, _like, "literally"_ shot in the head??


No 'ifs' no 'buts'. Bang! Problem solved. :tongue2:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> ??? I want you to hand the ball to me. What's objectionable about that?


Ahh CD perhaps it is not a pattern of speech encountered in the States?

Clearly a sentence can be imagined which is utterly grammatically correct yet fulfils the despised criteria (and thank you for pointing it out, you devil!)

However that to which I refer is more _this_ type of thing - "I like clothes, me". Now I know, I know, you can scarcely credit it. It sounds unbelievable doesn't it? Who could mangle the language so? In the UK this pattern of nonsense is unfortunately quite common.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

You guys are just talking single words. In the northeast, they have entire catch phrases that are employed commonly. For example, someone will make the most hurtful, outrageous, or crazy observation, and then end it with "I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'."

One saving grace is that the phrase does have a magical property of softening what came before. I might say to my wife, "Your mother is irritating." She would be rightly offended, but if I said, "Your mother is irritating. I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'." She would still be offended, but she might not make me sleep on the couch for a week.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Ahh CD perhaps it is not a pattern of speech encountered in the States? ...
> 
> However that to which I refer is more _this_ type of thing - "I like clothes, me". Now I know, I know, you can scarcely credit it.


Wow, never heard that. I agree, that's silliness.

The pointless redundancies on the ends of sentences always sit badly with me. One popular one in America is this interrogatory: "Where are you at?" Drop the last word from the sentence, and what meaning is lost. Nothing. NUH-THING. Makes my feet itch.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> You guys are just talking single words. In the northeast, they have entire catch phrases that are employed commonly. For example, someone will make the most hurtful, outrageous, or crazy observation, and then end it with "I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'."


I'm familiar with that one. I agree that the effect is softening. I think it probably is a phrase that elides a more full sentence. In your mother-in-law example, that's really being said is, "I'm not saying *that your mother is a b!tch or a bad person*, I'm just saying *that she does have a capacity to irritate others."* It acts as a disclaimer of the full implication of what one has literally said. I hear it on sports talk radio, too. After criticizing a coach, the elided sentence might be, "I'm not saying *the team should fire him*, I'm just saying *that calling a timeout 2 minutes into the first half to avoid a delay of game on second and one was not a great decision* ."


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Shaver said:


> People who pepper their speech with extraneous use of 'actually' should be taken out the back and shot in the head.





Earl of Ormonde said:


> Ditto 'Basically'


I'd like to second these excellent suggestions and add on all those who begin every other sentence with "[Well, ]I have to say...". No you don't; you don't have to bloody well say anything at all, you #¤+&%*!

Another pet hate, on forums, are...(slight pause as I head for the bunker and continue typing from there)...all those who only ever use acronyms, blithely expecting the whole world to know exactly what they're on about.



CuffDaddy said:


> One popular one in America is this interrogatory: "Where are you at?" Drop the last word from the sentence, and what meaning is lost. Nothing. NUH-THING. Makes my feet itch.


Don't they usually drop the "are" as well? I.e. "where you at?" Just wondering as I'm only going by the movies here, having never heard anyone say it in real life.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Belfaborac said:


> Don't they usually drop the "are" as well? I.e. "where you at?" Just wondering as I'm only going by the movies here, having never heard anyone say it in real life.


Those who are trying to sound hip-hop, yes. But there are plenty of well-educated, affluent people who will give the complete sentence. I've heard business executives and lawyers and engineers do it.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

CuffDaddy said:


> ...there are plenty of well-educated, affluent people who will give the complete sentence. I've heard business executives and lawyers and engineers do it.


Oh dear...


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Yep. Human speech patterns are quite maleable. Anyone who isn't particularly interested in grammar and usage can _easily_ pick up strange usages when they are ubiquitous. As I stated earlier, I acquired the "so" tic inadvertently. I'm not sure it's wrong, _per se_, but I certainly would not have made a conscious decision to do start using it. And I *am* a person interested in the English language.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I must confess I occasionally commence a statement (or indeed a post on the forum) with 'so'. However this use of 'so' - albeit a conjunction - to begin a sentence *is* grammatically correct in various circumstance, not the least of which is to grant emphasis to the words that follow. Where it becomes annoying is in excessive usage. And speaking of which....

People who say 'random' all the time should be kicked square in the seat of the pants.

.
.
.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> People who say 'random' all the time should be kicked square in the seat of the pants..


Yes. The three actual words that I am most sick of hearing, that just need a break for about two years are: *random*; *stunning*; and *amazing*.

Random does not mean surprising. It means arising through, or being characteristic of, pure chance. The call that you recieved from your sister that communicated to you the uncouth behavior of her neighbor - neither the call nor the reported behavior were "random." They were events arising from deliberate decision-making, and part of a causal chain that can be understood (and that could, given adequate information, be manipulated or predicted in the future). Pretty much the _opposite_ of random.

As for "amazing," I guess it is that word's turn to become a generic positive verb. "Awesome" fell from its perch long ago, and "brilliant" is in the rose-colored muck as well. But if I hear one more cup of mass-produced processed yogurt described as "amazing," I will not be responsible for my actions. "Stunning" is now on the slide as well. For whatever reason, the marketers and other linguistic taste-makers have decided that the most desired state is one of stupefaction. Apparently, the best compliment that I can pay to something is that it rendered me slack-jawed, drooling, and temporarily incapable of further action. That does not fill me with good feelings toward my culture, although when I first noticed it, I was slightly stunned and amazed.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

The form of "So ....." that irritates me the most, is when the person is asked a question and they reply "So ......" subsequently answering the question. It is a kind of "um" substitute, but an irritating one.
The redundant use of "like" is also irritating. For example, "It was, like, a good goal." I generally ask my sons if they say that kind of thing whether they ,mean it was like a good goal, or a good goal. That irritates them, but that is a good thing, like.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> However that to which I refer is more _this_ type of thing - "I like clothes, me". Now I know, I know, you can scarcely credit it. It sounds unbelievable doesn't it? Who could mangle the language so? In the UK this pattern of nonsense is unfortunately quite common.


A very common form of dialectic speech in parts of the North East, Teesside in particular. Indeed, if I see that form in print I might assume that the author is from Middlesbrough or nearby because of it's standard usage there.


----------



## walrusbt (Jan 10, 2013)

CuffDaddy said:


> Yes. The three actual words that I am most sick of hearing, that just need a break for about two years are: *random*; *stunning*; and *amazing*.
> 
> Random does not mean surprising. It means arising through, or being characteristic of, pure chance. The call that you recieved from your sister that communicated to you the uncouth behavior of her neighbor - neither the call nor the reported behavior were "random." They were events arising from deliberate decision-making, and part of a causal chain that can be understood (and that could, given adequate information, be manipulated or predicted in the future). Pretty much the _opposite_ of random.
> 
> As for "amazing," I guess it is that word's turn to become a generic positive verb. "Awesome" fell from its perch long ago, and "brilliant" is in the rose-colored muck as well. But if I hear one more cup of mass-produced processed yogurt described as "amazing," I will not be responsible for my actions. "Stunning" is now on the slide as well. For whatever reason, the marketers and other linguistic taste-makers have decided that the most desired state is one of stupefaction. Apparently, the best compliment that I can pay to something is that it rendered me slack-jawed, drooling, and temporarily incapable of further action. That does not fill me with good feelings toward my culture, although when I first noticed it, I was slightly stunned and amazed.


Man do I agree with you on that. Amazing/awesome are used way to much....rarely are those people "amazed" or in "awe." I hadn't thought about random, but you're right.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Yes. The three actual words that I am most sick of hearing, that just need a break for about two years are: *random*; *stunning*; and *amazing*.
> 
> Random does not mean surprising. It means arising through, or being characteristic of, pure chance. The call that you recieved from your sister that communicated to you the uncouth behavior of her neighbor - neither the call nor the reported behavior were "random." They were events arising from deliberate decision-making, and part of a causal chain that can be understood (and that could, given adequate information, be manipulated or predicted in the future). Pretty much the _opposite_ of random.
> 
> As for "amazing," I guess it is that word's turn to become a generic positive verb. "Awesome" fell from its perch long ago, and "brilliant" is in the rose-colored muck as well. But if I hear one more cup of mass-produced processed yogurt described as "amazing," I will not be responsible for my actions. "Stunning" is now on the slide as well. For whatever reason, the marketers and other linguistic taste-makers have decided that the most desired state is one of stupefaction. Apparently, the best compliment that I can pay to something is that it rendered me slack-jawed, drooling, and temporarily incapable of further action. That does not fill me with good feelings toward my culture, although when I first noticed it, I was slightly stunned and amazed.


It's a devaluing of the currency of language and presumably resultant of the inflation engendered by poor vocabulary.

You are totally correct about the idealised state of stupefaction rashly promised by consumerism. When I (very occasionally) watch an advert on the television then I see customers of the most mundane products portrayed in a state of ecstasy that I would normally associate with another activity entirely. Most odd.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> It's a devaluing of the currency of language and presumably resultant of the inflation engendered by poor vocabulary.


I don't know that "poor vocabulary" is the driver. I think it's simply that people don't want to say "it's pretty good," or "it's entirely acceptable." Certainly not the marketers, and they drive a lot of the language to which people are exposed. Unless you're these guys:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> The pointless redundancies on the ends of sentences always sit badly with me. One popular one in America is this interrogatory: "Where are you at?"


My wife replies "Over here, behind the 'at'"


----------



## barkingloud78 (Jun 30, 2012)

How about the rising use of "that's crazy". Is it really crazy? Or is it just unusual? Or maybe unexpected? 

Confession, I really have to stop using "that's crazy".


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Is it ironic??

Or mererly a coincidence??


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Random thoughts:

My kids have started to use the word "epic" to describe anything they consider interesting.

A curious northeastern colloquialism is the phrase "look it". I've heard it used as an interjection. For example, "Look it, the project is due tomorrow." I've also heard it used as a conjunction. It's not that jarring to the ear because I've gotten used to hearing it, but I remember finding it an odd use of the language when I first moved to PA.

I second Shaver's objection to the term "Actually" to start a sentence. It is usually followed with an arrogant statement that nitpicks what was just said by someone else. In some cases, its use is very effective as it is a powerful way to start a sentence. But, as with most powerful tools, it is overused. For example, I might say, "I think the high temperature is supposed to be 11 today." Then, if someone chimes in and says, "Actually, it's supposed to be 12.", I would find that annoying, and if the talker says it "Ahhhhhctually", then I wholeheartedly agree with Shaver's punishment for the speaker.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> My kids have started to use the word "epic" to describe anything they consider interesting.


This drives me mad.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Another manner of speaking that utterly enrages is me is practised by those who lack the ability (or desire) to recount a tale in synopsis but instead choose to merely repeat a, presumably, sparse version of the dialogue. For example I might say that yesterday a colleague and I disagreed about the quality of my tie. These simple minded buffoons to whom I refer will instead regale one thusly "so he said do you know what? and I said what? and he said I dont like your tie and I said I dont care and he said well you should care so I said well I dont" and so on and so forth until my head explodes from the mindless drivel.

These people should be impaled on a stake, Vlad III style.

.
.
.
.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Shaver said:


> People who pepper their speech with extraneous use of 'actually' should be taken out the back and shot in the head.
> 
> People who begin a sentence with 'I' and end it with 'me' should be taken out the back roughed up a little and then shot in the head.
> 
> ...


i would endorse the same treatment to anyone who uses the word "like" three or more times in one sentence.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> My kids have started to use the word "epic" to describe anything they consider interesting.


I'm no fan, but I think that's a different phenomenon than the rise of "amazing." Nobody using the word "epic" to describe a pizza or a rock concert or a fraternity party is seriously contending that those things or events will be spoken of in legend. It's a usage that is fairly divorced from the original meaning, and everyone knows it. (Just as nobody literally thinks that a leather jacket or a race car is "cool.") It's just slang.

But "amazing"... people don't think they're using the word in anything but it's correct sense. People will use it in written communications where they would not use slang or colloquial language. People are actually saying that their frappuccino is amazing.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

CuffDaddy said:


> I'm no fan, but I think that's a different phenomenon than the rise of "amazing." Nobody using the word "epic" to describe a pizza or a rock concert or a fraternity party is seriously contending that those things or events will be spoken of in legend. It's a usage that is fairly divorced from the original meaning, and everyone knows it. (Just as nobody literally thinks that a leather jacket or a race car is "cool.") It's just slang.
> 
> But "amazing"... people don't think they're using the word in anything but it's correct sense. People will use it in written communications where they would not use slang or colloquial language. People are actually saying that their frappuccino is amazing.


I agree that everyone thinks they're using the words they're using correctly. Otherwise, they wouldn't use the words.

How do you think that "amazing" got to this point? Don't you think that "amazing" was the "epic" of the 1970s? I suspect that my kids will be adults in 15 years and use "epic" interchangably with "amazing" or "awesome"...that is, incorrectly, but with a certain positive connotation.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I actually don't think that people think they're using the word "epic" correctly, or at least only in the sense that it is correct to say that Fonzie was "cool." They know it's like using the term "dude." It's colloquial, and people know it.

People don't think they're being slang-y, though, when they say "amazing." It's been used in an overbroad manner for my whole life, but there's been some push in the last 5 years to make it THE generic positive adjective. I see it in serious business documents.

I don't think the "epic" thing is comparable. "Awesome" is closer.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

CuffDaddy said:


> I actually don't think that people think they're using the word "epic" correctly, or at least only in the sense that it is correct to say that Fonzie was "cool." They know it's like using the term "dude." It's colloquial, and people know it.
> 
> People don't think they're being slang-y, though, when they say "amazing." It's been used in an overbroad manner for my whole life, but there's been some push in the last 5 years to make it THE generic positive adjective. I see it in serious business documents.
> 
> I don't think the "epic" thing is comparable. "Awesome" is closer.


You're probably right with adults. I'm just theorizing that alternative incorrect defintions of words like "epic", "amazing", and "awesome" are exposed to kids who don't know better. Over time as they age, they (being the dominant cohort in adulthood) continue to use the words comfortably and incorrectly, and the "incorrect" definition becomes part of the accepted language.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Well, "cool" has certainly been in usage as a fairly generic positive for a lot longer than I've been alive, and I still know that using that word in that way is slang-y. I rarely commend a relevant case to a court with an endorsement that it's a really cool piece of precedent! 

But, of course, the definition of words does drift over time. I'm OK with that, but I do get annoyed when that drift destroys meaning/resolution/clarity. Turning every word that has been used as a positive at any point into a generic and all-purpose positive is destructive of meaning. Which is why it p!sses me off, especially.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Just look at the number of AAAC threads that begin with "So I was ....."


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> People who pepper their speech with extraneous use of 'actually' should be taken out the back and shot in the head.
> 
> People who begin a sentence with 'I' and end it with 'me' should be taken out the back roughed up a little and then shot in the head.
> 
> ...


So, I think it's awesome how Shaver never fails to actually amuse me. It is just so random!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

So, once again a 'dead thread' has been resurrected? It's a miracle...a doggone Cyber-miracle! LOL.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

In New York City, many people preface a statement (and some times end) with the phrase, "not for nothing." Examples: "Not for nothing, but it's really hot outside." "These doctors don't know what the hell they're talking about...not for nothing."

It's used almost as a quasi-apologetic or explanatory phrase, so as not to offend. Of course, when a New Yorker says, "Not for nothing, but you're really f-----g stupid" the attempt to soften and not offend doesn't quite succeed.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

I have noticed "so" here on Ask Andy. Interestingly, seeing it written gets my attention. Whereas, in conversations I occasionally start a sentence with it.

Some of the expressions under discussion are dialect, "where are you at?" being an example of a black English vernacular expression that along with others, such as cool, moved into art and music slang. 

An interesting example of this crossover, accompanied by a reversal of meaning is the BEV expression "up tight" which among African Americans meant, and still would be understood as, OK or all right, as in the lyrics to a song from forty years ago (... all right, up tight, outta sight...). I occasionally use the expression I'll "tighten you up" in speaking with an African American whom I believe will understand that I mean to say that I will take care of something, as in, for example pay for a service or repay a debt. Middle class white college students turned "up tight" around to mean emotionally distraught, or anxious.

I am particularly annoyed by the shift in meaning of brutalize from meaning to be made animal-like or brutish, that is degraded from human to sub-human character in the course of inflicting pain on people or animals, to being hurt or harmed by someone who is erroiously said to be brutalizing someone by hurting them, causing pain and injury.

My grammer school English text and curriculum included material calling out the differences between correct, proper usage, and incorrect, uneducated expressions. Most of the incorrect expressions sounded Southern to me. I subsequently came to view them as dialect and non-standard modes of speech, rather than incorrect or sub-standard speech. Living in the North East in the early 1970's I heard and enjoyed a number of regional dialect and ethnic expressions.

I still say cool and far out, as these expressions sound natural to me. I suspect that to many they sound quaint, if not antique. I hope I don't sound affected.

Cheers,
Gurdon


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Shaver said:


> However that to which I refer is more _this_ type of thing - "I like clothes, me". Now I know, I know, you can scarcely credit it. It sounds unbelievable doesn't it? Who could mangle the language so? In the UK this pattern of nonsense is unfortunately quite common.


It may be common but mostly Up North.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

A lot of sentences in Norn Iron end 'so it is' or 'so they do'.

For example 'They like clothes, so they do.'


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

It is quite annoying.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Gurdon said:


> I have noticed "so" here on Ask Andy. Interestingly, seeing it written gets my attention. Whereas, in conversations I occasionally start a sentence with it.
> 
> Some of the expressions under discussion are dialect, "where are you at?" being an example of a black English vernacular expression that along with others, such as cool, moved into art and music slang.
> 
> ...


If you're referring to to Yats, which I think has the greatest cultural connotation from "Where are you at," they're blue collar whites.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Borrowed or shared?*



Tilton said:


> If you're referring to to Yats, which I think has the greatest cultural connotation from "Where are you at," they're blue collar whites.


This is an interesting correspondence. Hard to say whether it is an appropriation or crossover, or a variant of a Southern regionalism employed by blue collar whites and blacks alike.

It seems to me that a lot of BEV usage has its origins in Southern dialect English spoken by members of all races there. I still find it pleasantly amusing to encounter Hispanics from Texas or New Mexico who speak English with an accent that sounds essentially Southern.

Thanks for sharing,
Gurdon


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

so, what's the point of this thread? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Point?*



gaseousclay said:


> so, what's the point of this thread? :icon_smile_big:


Point? Shared interest in colloquial usage, perhaps.

In Montana, where my sons live, it is currently popular to employ dialect expressions used by Indians resident in the Northern rockies. One frequently hears "innit," a form of "isn't it," as a rhetorical device. I imagine that people who study language and speech have the means to describe such words and their uses.

My sons attended a high school with a large Armenian contingent. They and their friends frequently use "Bro" a word commonly used in informal speech among Armenians. I don't know how it fell into useage by Armenian young people, and adults, of my acquaintence. It may be borrowed from BEV, as the student populations (1/3 each, African American, Anglo, Armenian) overlap.

Regards, 
Gurdon


----------



## alkydrinker (Apr 24, 2012)

Regarding the original topic (beginning words with "So.."), I've noticed a certain type of usage of this phenomenon catching on in the past couple years. Not sure if this is the type of usage pointed out by the OP, but it is by educated, usually left wing people, starting sentences this way when they are about to explain their point of view in a manner that I interpret as obnoxious and condescending. Paul Krugman does this ALL THE TIME. I hear other Obama spokespeople do it too on TV. I can't remember ever hearing any conservatives use it. But, it seems this idiosyncrasy has spread around elite beltway crowd. I hear it commonly used when someone being interviewed doesn't want to entirely accept the premise of a question and they want to explain their point of view while sortof resetting the set of assumptions being used and the context of the conversation.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

"Bro" was a common way to address a male peer when I was in high school about 7 years ago. Maybe in an overarching cultural way it came from BEV, but I went to a high school that was around 5% African-American, so it is doubtful it came from such a small segment of my high school. I think it is really just an address adopted by a generation.

Coming from the rural South, "innit" is also heard very frequently, and was unquestionably not appropriated from Native Americans. The more rural you go, the more you hear it, and the more you hear it tacked on to the end of a sentence to make a rhetorical question: "That new Toby Keith song is great, innit?"

It would seem that American English progresses similarly across the spectrum regardless of heritage, and probably driven by pop-culture and mass media.



Gurdon said:


> Point? Shared interest in colloquial usage, perhaps.
> 
> In Montana, where my sons live, it is currently popular to employ dialect expressions used by Indians resident in the Northern rockies. One frequently hears "innit," a form of "isn't it," as a rhetorical device. I imagine that people who study language and speech have the means to describe such words and their uses.
> 
> ...


----------



## unmodern (Aug 10, 2009)

Actually, most experts on the English language agree that beyond certain kinds of errors that only a child or non-native speaker would make (_e_._g_., "They likes it."), there is no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' in language. Certain usages become standardized and others are stigmatized (_e_._g_., "Where are you?" _vs_. "Where are you at?"), but this has everything to do with power (class, race, region), not some objective set of permanent guidelines. Incidentally, I am given to understand that the formulation "I like it, me," current in parts of England, is also used by certain groups of African-Americans in New Orleans, where it is derived from similar formulations in French. The English language is always changing, and to assume a reactionary pose is to guarantee that you will end up on the wrong side of linguistic history. For example, the form of the verb _ask _with what is called metathesis (_ax_), a feature of African-American Vernacular English that would probably be considered incorrect by most white speakers, was one form used by the Anglo-Saxons (Old English _axian _"to ask").


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

barkingloud78 said:


> How about the rising use of "that's crazy". Is it really crazy? Or is it just unusual? Or maybe unexpected?
> 
> Confession, I really have to stop using "that's crazy".


Man, you so cray cray.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

unmodern, there is undoubtedly a great deal of class/power/economics in usage, and enforcement of same. However, if one takes a functionalist view towards language, some usage patterns are clearly superior to others, in that they either provide better clarity or avoid needless words. It is not inherently an exercise of social/class power to express a strong preference for clear and efficient language.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

unmodern said:


> Actually, most experts on the English language agree that beyond certain kinds of errors that only a child or non-native speaker would make (_e_._g_., "They likes it."), there is no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' in language. Certain usages become standardized and others are stigmatized (_e_._g_., "Where are you?" _vs_. "Where are you at?"), but this has everything to do with power (class, race, region), not some objective set of permanent guidelines. Incidentally, I am given to understand that the formulation "I like it, me," current in parts of England, is also used by certain groups of African-Americans in New Orleans, where it is derived from similar formulations in French. The English language is always changing, and to assume a reactionary pose is to guarantee that you will end up on the wrong side of linguistic history. For example, the form of the verb _ask _with what is called metathesis (_ax_), a feature of African-American Vernacular English that would probably be considered incorrect by most white speakers, *was one form used by the Anglo-Saxons (Old English axian "to ask")*.


Etymology doesn't really negate the fact that metathesis is, by definition, pretty much just a slip of the tongue. Good speakers don't think that "nucular" is correct, but they know what it means.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> It may be common but mostly Up North.


More specifically, North Yorkshire/South Durham, what can be described as Teesside.


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

"So", like "like", can be useful or be overused, depending on the circumstances. Starting a sentence with "so" or "and" would be OK to indicate a continuation of the previous sentence's thought. For example, if someone said "Only an amateur would play Ibanez guitars", someone else might reply "So you think Joe Satriani is an amateur?" "So' or "and" can also be used to break up an otherwise excessively long sentience into two. A middle schooler using "like" every three words is annoying. But it could be used to indicate that something is not a direct quote. For example, "so she said that, like, Tony is real a jerk" - meaning that "Tony is a real jerk" is merely a paraphrase or summary of her opinion, and not her actual words.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Perhaps of interest is a form of speech in Sweden that resembles some of the country forms in England, whereby they move the subject and an emphatic verb to the end of the sentence. Not that common but common enough that you come across it now and again, especially in rural areas. 


"åkte till Stockholm i lördags, gjorde jag" 


"travelled to Stockholm on Saturday, did I" (or I did)


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

This speech form is also heard in the rural US. Examples can be heard on the Andy Griffith comedy recording "What it Was Was Football." It begins, "We was a-goin' to hold a tent service off in a college town, we was." (Actually, he may have said "we were," as that is what replays in my mind. At some point, or points, as it were, sentences end in "I did," as described above. 

The flip side of the 45 rpm disk has an explanation of Romeo and Julliet delivered in Southern dialect. As Mr. Griffith is a southerner, the rendition is quite sympathetic, not condescending.

Gurdon


----------

