Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 December 31

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Language
Language desk
< December 30 << Nov | December | Jan >> January 1 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


December 31

edit

So

edit

In my part of the world I've encountered increasing use of the word "So" as the first word of a sentence. I've wondered how global it is. Now I'v seen it in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive243#Editing a conspiracy article, the OP's first post begins with "So I recently came across this article..."

Now, I have no interest whatsoever in the OP's concerns. I'm just interested in that construction. How common is it around the world for standalone sentences to begin with "So..."? And how did this linguistic fashion arise? HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common enough in every part of the United States I have lived (New England, Great Lakes Region, Atlantic South). --Jayron32 03:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite popular in the "red ink" letters in tabloid newspapers. "So, I read that the European Court is....", "So now it's not possible to put an England flag in my car window.", "So now Cameron says he wants to force us all to be gay." doktorb wordsdeeds 03:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's very common in teenage and uneducated middle-age writing, and I've heard it spoken by Canadians and Americans, but not Brits, however Brits do write it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Some of the people who accept the conjunction "so" at the beginning of a sentence might not accept it at the beginning of a paragraph or at the beginning of a discussion. The adverb "so" is something else.) One possible response is the question "Why?", because if p so q, then q because p. These web pages discuss the topic.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC) and 03:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like getting into an elevator in hotels and waiting until it fills up and it's moving, and then saying to everyone, "So, I guess you are wondering why I brought you all here today," as if it's a board meeting. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't heard that one since I was a student. Can you prove you ever did it, e.g. a YouTube clip? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't prove it, but I have done it a few times. I've actually done it at meetings and training sessions, too, even though I wasn't the boss. I did it once at an interview, too. Got the job straight away. :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis -- see Clitic, and scroll down to the section on "Wackernagel's law"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, let me know if you come across a list of Greek or Latin sentence clitics anywhere. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A long-standing and classic pick-up line in the US: "So, do you come here often?", well-known to the point where people make jokes about the line. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have frequently heard "Do you come here often?" I cannot ever recall having heard "So do you come here often?" Are you really sure of what you're saying? I may have heard it, but I it certainly hasn't stood out like the more recent rash of usage of the word that I've noticed. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be spoken more like "So ... Do you come here often?" when initiating a conversation (but in writing, as we well know, some people dispense with punctuation and lose much of the sense). Quite different from its use in mid-conversation. If you were talking to someone and you happened to mention something or someone you'd seen here recently, they might ask "So, do you come here often?", meaning "Are you telling me/Does this mean you frequent this establishment?". But I think you're talking about the former case.-- Jack of Oz [Talk] 21:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Use of "So" to start a sentence mid-conversation is different (and far more logical) than what I first raised here, which is using "So" as the first word of a conversation. See the example in my first post. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I referred to pick-up lines. By definition they are conversation starters. And yes, I'm sure I've heard it quite a few times. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Here is a permanent link to the other discussion, so that editors can access it easily after it has been archived.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)][reply]

To address HiLo, it's not a question of logicality, but of pragmatics in spoken sentences. Writing in that way seems conversational, informal, and even jocular. But it is perfectly natural for speech, Consider, your wife walks into the room:

So, Honey, what do you think we should have for dinner?
Well, I was thinking of something spicy.
Then do you want to get Thai?
But that place is expensive.
So how about Szechuan?
Yeah, I'll get my wallet.

That conversation makes sense, sentences with well are responding to the previous comment, those with so are introducing a new topic. Change the clitics around and it sounds disjointed and absurd. Again, your wife walks in the room:

Then, Honey, what do you think we should have for dinner?
So, I was thinking of something spicy.
Well, do you want to get Thai?
Yeah, that place is expensive.
But, how about Szechuan?
So I'll get my wallet.

Formal non-fiction isn't presented in conversation form. But conversation is prior to writing, and certainly not less logical. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those English words wouldn't usually be considered clitics -- a clitic is a word which joins closely with the preceding or following word, or which lacks some of the usual phonological requisites of wordhood and has a tightly constrained syntactic positioning. In ancient Greek, a clitic was a word without an independent pitch accent. In modern French, the majority of clitics consist of a single consonant followed by ə, and all of them are constrained to occur only next to the verb (usually before it), or next to other clitics which are next to the verb. If a word is separated from the rest of its sentence by a comma, then it is definitely not a clitic... AnonMoos (talk) 06:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that's correct, I meant to say particles. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed in conversation yesterday that I often do pre-cliticize well, which can lose its stress and have the vowel reduced to a syllabic ell. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The voiceless sibilant at the beginning of the word "so" is relatively easy to hear in various acoustic environments, and the word "so" is probably interpreted by many listeners as being friendlier than "Listen!" and "I say!" for getting attention. The introductory conjunction "so" suggests that there was previous information, and a listener who regrets have missed hearing it might be more inclined to listen closely in order to catch up on the development of the discussion. When the conjunction "so" is the last word of a sentence, then a listener might be more inclined to keep listening in order to hear what comes next. Consequently, the conjunction "so" tends to grab attention at the beginning and to hold onto it at the end.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference in intonation between the introductory and continuing so's which make them distinct in speech. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Jewish minx" mean?

edit

I'm watching a debate between Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens, and Hitchens quotes David Hume who said, "Which is more likely: That the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?" I understand what the quote means[1], I'm just curious about the phrase "Jewish minx". What does that mean? Does that mean "Jewish woman"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the choices at Minx, a flirty, wanton woman. (Religion as seductress, perhaps?) Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beware that that quote is racist in that it seems to imply Jewish women are "flirty, wanton women" who can't be trusted to tell the truth. StuRat (talk)
My guess is the "Jewish minx" he's referring to is probably Mary Magdalene, supposedly the first person to see Jesus after his resurrection, and also supposedly a former prostitute. So to paraphrase: what's more likely, Jesus really returned from the dead, or Mary Magdalene was lying when she said he did? --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or, as some googling suggests that this quote refers to the Virgin Birth rather than the resurrection, the "Jewish minx" could be the other Mary, Jesus' mother, a young woman pregnant out of wedlock, who, he suggests, is more likely to be lying about the circumstances of her pregnancy than pregnant miraculously. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think your second is right. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realize minx meant also meant "a flirty, wanton woman". Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hume may have meant the word "minx" as a serious insult, but later on in the Victorian times, the word wasn't very strong; the OED first edition says "now often merely playful", and declares the "lewd or wanton woman" meaning as obsolete. AnonMoos (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I don't recall Minnie the Minx being lewd or wanton.--Shantavira|feed me 10:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a source for this quote? Zoonoses (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean evidence of David Hume's having written it, I don't think any exists. Searches for "minx" and "natural order" in Hume's works at http://www.davidhume.org turn up no results, and a search for "Jewish" turns up nothing relevant. The view that "no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish" is certainly expressed in Section 10 ("Of Miracles") of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, but I can find no evidence that Hume explicitly applied this principle to the Virgin Birth. The formulation quoted by the OP appears to be Hitchens's and not Hume's. Deor (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some Hume scholar should set the world straight. It runs rampant, like so many thing on the net and even in this book:[2](It's possible, one supposes, he said it and did not write it) Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Christopher Hitchens Debates Al Sharpton - New York Public @t=46m37s Hitchens attributes the line to Hume. I think it's supposed to be a joke. Alanscottwalker's link shows that not all published material is to be trusted.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one prepared to call bullshit on this. It hath not Hume's orbicular style. It wouldn't surprise me if Hitchens wasn't playing a little joke on the less erudite (or more gullible) of the Atheist brethren by using a long-dead Scotsman as a stalking horse. (BTW, if we agree Hitchens was the author and not Hume, the "minx" almost certainly was the VM, not MM). Zoonoses (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do VM and MM mean? --KnightMove (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene. LadyofShalott 17:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2012_December_31&oldid=1146478846"