Talk:So (word)

Merge
I think this should be merged with So (sentence closer). If this particle is notable, it is unlikely to be notable separately. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The content of both is distinct. They are both common quirky cultural phenomina that have been commented on by the media. For example in a big percentage of interviews I hear on the TV and radio here in the UK, the person interviewed answers questions by starting with "So ..". There is no so (sentence middle) article as it does not have sufficient distinctness or cultural notability.--Penbat (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC) The most quirky aspect of closing "so"s is the dangling so".--Penbat (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. All senses of so come from the same place etymologically, and stem in one way or another from the original sense roughly meaning "like that". Lumping together the so's in "is that so?" and "He didn’t show up, so..." (but not "So,") just because they happen to appear at the end of a sentence is entirely arbitrary, as is clear by the fact the current introduction does nothing but separate the meanings. There seems to be precedent that we could use So (currently a redirect to DAB page SO) after a merge, instead of So (word). ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 18:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. They are not just arbitrary instances of "so" appearing at the end of a sentence - they are examples of references back to something said earlier which is one of the three functions. The other two functions are be the "dangling so" and the "intensifying so" at the end of sentences. The usage of "so" used at the front of a sentence is completely distinct from the end of a sentence, there is no crossover. Also, as I said, it is impractical to cover "so (sentence middle)" as it is so open ended so so (word) or so for merging would be wrong and confusing as "so" in the middle of sentences would be missing.--Penbat (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess they do both reference something said earlier, though I would say for slightly different reasons. The "so" in "Is that so?" is an adverb which can be roughly paraphrased as "like that":
 * "Say it ain't so" (Say it's not like that)
 * "Make it so" (Make it like that)
 * "How so?" (How [is it] like that? or How [did it come to be] like that?)
 * "I'm afraid so" (I'm afraid [it is] like that)
 * ...and so on. Meanwhile, "dangling so" comes from "conjunction so" (as in "X happened, so Y happened") when the second clause is omitted ("Did Y happen?" "Well, X happened, so... [yes]." and "It was going great but then X happened, so... [Y happened]"). If you can finish the sentence, "so" turns back into a conjunction. "Initial so" (as in "So I was thinking...") is also originally derived from conjunction "so", only this time with the first clause omitted. This could be because it was someone else who said it, because of a gap since it was said (a long pause, a change of topic), or because it was non-verbal (an event, a thought):
 * Person A: "The Queen of Diamonds is missing from this deck." Person B: "So she can't have gotten far."
 * "I'm nearly done with that report you wanted, boss." "Oh, great. So you can get that to me by Monday, yeah?"
 * "I'm nearly done with that report you wanted, boss." "Oh, great." "And also... I'm your son." [Long pause.] "So you can get that to me by Monday, yeah?"
 * "My wife's leaving me... [Long pause.] So I guess I've got to find somewhere else to live now."
 * [Door slams in face.] "So I guess I've got to find somewhere else to live now."
 * [Television program concludes.] "So there you have it, folks, a dolphin can beat a badger at checkers."
 * [You remember, in your own head, that Michael owes you money.] "So Michael, about that money..."
 * From there you can get to "So" as just a way to start a sentence. My point is, both dangling "so" and initial "so" come from conjunction "so" and so they're more like each other than they are like adverb "so" or intensifier "so", even when they happen to come at the end of a sentence which, after all, they don't have to ("If it is so, there's nothing we can do about it", "I love you so much".). Ultimately, both conjunction "so" and intensifier "so" come from adverb "so" so they are all related but we can leave that for another time. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 02:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. You overlook the biggest reason why there are two separate articles which I raised. It is just implausible to cover "so (sentence middle)" in Wikipedia as it is so open ended and the ground is quite well covered by wiktionary so. If "so (sentence middle)" could be covered I would have no problem with a common article. Another point is that "so (sentence middle)" tends to be pure grammar while "so (sentence opener)" and "so (sentence closer)" are more quirky and cultural thus relevant to Wikipedia.--Penbat (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. I doubt that function words, with or without quirkiness or "culural significance" in their use, really deserve a wikipedia article, but we do have precedents here, so if the article gets nominated for deletion it will probably survive. However, there is nothing to justify splitting the topic across two articles like that. There's no such thing as a sentence closer "so": that article covers three distinct uses: one is the dangling "so", which is simply one use of "so" as a regular cunjunction (I guess that's what's meant by "sentence middle" above). The other two uses derive from the meaning "that much" and there the word may, though need not, come at the end of a sentence. There might be another, sensible, way to partition the topic into separate articles, but it's much easier to have it all in one place: So (word) or So (English word) are suitable titles. Claiming the base title So should be ruled out as the English conjunction/adverb isn't a primary topic: the other topics listed on the dab page might appear obscure, but it's worth bearing in mind that those are the kinds of topics readers expect to find in an encyclopedia, not an article about an everyday English function word. – Uanfala (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support merging the two into So (English word) or something to that effect. Nardog (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)



Citation needed
"has become increasingly popular in recent years". Has it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecwiebe (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. The article itself as currently written seems to self-confirm this opinion in the phrase about Silicon Valley being the place identified as where it is becoming increasingly common. "So" as a Discourse marker has been with us as long as I can remember (literally) and I am aware of no up-tick in frequency. The article also mentions Shakespeare and Chaucer as references. So, the claim that "so" - "has become increasingly popular in recent years." really does need to be substantiated or deleted. -- A LGRIF  talk 10:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)