We're 24 days into 2018 and already there is something annoying me....so what's new? I hear you ask:)
Why do so many people have to answer a question with 'So.....'
It's everywhere, and mostly from people who should know better.
Pat
|
|
That is annoying... my mother does that. She even uses it when asking questions.
|
Not just answering questions. Any statement can begin with "So". To me it devalues the meaning of "so" (therefore/as a consequence), but that's language change for you.
No doubt some people were annoyed, years ago, when "by cause" became "because".
|
|
It drives me up the wall and every other person interviewed on R4 does it. I have noticed it seems to be more of a younger female trait.
|
It’s main use is really as a sort of filler at the beginning of a sentence - it sounds better than erm or err and buys a little time to think and also adds a possibly spuriously authoritative air to the answer.
So why do people use it then: it’s actually quite useful so unlikely to disappear.
My pet hateis people on phone-ins who begin “How you doing Brian? John, etc. Instead of just stating their point. Becomes very tedious when every caller starts the same way.
|
I also complained about that when it became prevalent, possibly even on here. However, the game is lost. I use it all the time. I catch myself sometimes, but not always.
I notice now that you hear people who are not native English speakers using it too.
Bizarrely, when in Father Ted they END sentences with so, I really like it.
Anything has to be better than the standard YouTube start of "s'up guys?" they all use.
So there, so.
|
So I reckon it's been used in this way since at least about 2013, when I started a contract in London. I'm pretty sure that's when I first became aware of it.
2018 annoyance for me is the absolute explosion of #metoo type stories. I would probably be seen as not entirely politically correct on this, so I won't elaborate, but I can see the end of the human population if a man can't make a pass at a girl without prior written permission!!
(I do understand there is more to #metoo than this but even the lady journo reporting the WPP dinner stuff admitted there are a number of women who come back year after year as they enjoy it, get work from it, make friends at it etc etc.)
|
>> even the lady journo reporting the WPP dinner stuff admitted there are a number of women who come back year after year as they enjoy it, get work from it, make friends at it etc etc.)<<
Ok, so let's presume for a minute that 'they enjoy it' and put that aside.
How about the men concerned in this event? I presume you think that behaviour is completely acceptable?
I certainly don't and to try and dress it up in the name of 'raising money for charity' sort of supports the view that in any other concept it would be totally unacceptable.
I have always been the first one to come out on the side of the blokes in most of the #metoo stories but on this occasion I certainly won't.
Pat
|
|
This was a set up. She was fully briefed about possible behaviour before she took it on, probably by her editor who has probably been to previous events. The story was pre written.
|
>>Ok, so let's presume for a minute that 'they enjoy it' and put that aside.
How about the men concerned in this event? I presume you think that behaviour is completely acceptable?>>
Did you even read it?
Pat
|
I assume you are replying to me.
>> How about the men concerned in this event? I presume you think that behaviour is
>> completely acceptable?>>
No
>>
>> Did you even read it?
Yes?
But lets say you had been warned about the likely environment and what might happen. Would you carry on with the engagement?
No you wouldnt, unless you were a journo after a story, or to make your mark in journalism.
|
>> But lets say you had been warned about the likely environment and what might happen.
>> Would you carry on with the engagement?
She knew the history and what to expect. She went in there to cover the story because in the current environment, post Weinstein, it's an important issue. Sure it helps her career but how many of us would turn down a career boosting assignment because we knew what we were letting ourselves in for and it might be difficult?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 25 Jan 18 at 12:35
|
>> She knew the history and what to expect. She went in there to cover the
>> story because in the current environment, post Weinstein, it's an important issue. Sure it helps
>> her career but how many of us would turn down a career boosting assignment because
>> we knew what we were letting ourselves in for and it might be difficult?
Exactly, of course you would, so lets stop being so sanctimoniously outraged on her go-getting behalf. She engineered and got what she wanted.
|
>> Exactly, of course you would, so lets stop being so sanctimoniously outraged on her go-getting
>> behalf. She engineered and got what she wanted.
I'm not outraged on her behalf. I am outraged by the behaviour she exposed and the culture of entitlement behind it.
|
But were you in the least surprised by it, were you completely unaware stuff like that happened? Like me I assume you have been to "gentlemens" evenings, so like me I assume you knew it happened, and she had no need to "expose" it, let alone whine about it.
So your outrage is probably just a bit engineered as well.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 25 Jan 18 at 12:55
|
>> But were you in the least surprised by it, were you completely unaware stuff like
>> that happened? Like me I assume you have been to "gentlemens" evenings, so like me
>> I assume you knew it happened, and she had no need to "expose" it, let
>> alone whine about it.
>>
>> So your outrage is probably just a bit engineered as well.
Spot on.
|
S’up guys?
I’m just home from pre curry birthday drinks, Curry, then post curry drinks. Landlord told us to “sup up guys†as we were boozing after hours. Very irritating as I just got (ten) third wind.
Fourth if you include curry botty burps
Last edited by: legacylad on Thu 25 Jan 18 at 00:32
|
So at the beginning of a sentence is correctly used to supply a conclusion or an update to a saga that has been going on for some time. It is like opening a thread on page 4 to see how the discussion has progressed.
Starting with So when there is no narrative beforehand implies that there is more to this than meets the eye - some vital information has been withheld or deleted, without which the story is meaningless.
It begs the question as to what have we not been told, why is the writer trying to hide something?
|
|
Ah, but that's correct usage Zero. With a question mark - on its own.
|
>>Mypet hateis people on phone-ins who begin "How you doing Brian? John, etc. Instead of just stating their point. Becomes very tedious when every caller starts the same way.
Yep, tis one of mine too. Brain Hayes of Talk Sport fame used to tell 'em "my health is not in question".
|
>>Brain Hayes of Talk Sport fame used to tell 'em "my health is not in question".
So, it was actually Mike Dickin, not Brian Hayes, like.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1537477/Mike-Dickin.html
|
The word 'overly' is an irritation. What's wrong with 'too'?
I also detest the word 'gotten'. "I had gotten ill over Christmas". What's wrong with "I got ill..."?
Its creeping into mainstream usage even on the BBC!
|
My mother used to tell me that the word 'got' is almost always unnecessary. Particularly in "I've got/he's got" for example where "I have" or "he has" does the job.
Of course there is the biblical sense.
|
>> My mother used to tell me that the word 'got' is almost always unnecessary. Particularly
>> in "I've got/he's got" for example where "I have" or "he has" does the job.
As in I have a job or I got a Job??????
Oh!
|
>> The word 'overly' is an irritation. What's wrong with 'too'?
>> I also detest the word 'gotten'. "I had gotten ill over Christmas". What's wrong with
>> "I got ill..."?
>> Its creeping into mainstream usage even on the BBC!
I think its called invention and progress.
|
|
We are 24 days in to 2018 and its no different to 2017, still the same nonsensical whining about the use of language.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 24 Jan 18 at 19:48
|
|
It’s deja vu all over again.
|
>> It’s deja vu all over again.
You keep saying that
|
>> It’s deja vu all over again.
>>
Deja vu doesn't mean seeing something again - it means having delusions that you have previously seen something when you haven't.
|
>> We are 24 days in to 2018 and its no different to 2017, still the
>> same nonsensical whining
So stop it!
|
Not necessarily 2018, but On F1, everyone and his auntie keep saying "for sure".
But for sure they'll probably do it in 2018 anyway.
|
|
It's like, so annoying when like, people, particularly those under 30, who like, pepper sentences with that b***** word.
|
>> The word 'overly' is an irritation. What's wrong with 'too'?
Take as an example 'overly complicated' vs. 'too complicated'. The former to me at least means it is more complicated than it needs to be. The latter is... well too complicated.
|
We have a fiend who starts virtually every topic with " I mean,......." Gives me the irrits but can't say anything. Don't like the " How are you today, Ted " wallahs either. Tried a new policy this week. I asked the caller for the password before I could tell her anything. Five minutes of discussion about it and she said she'd have to speak to her supervisor and ring me back. Never did !
Telly bugs me now, don't they have sound engineers any more ? Volume button nearly worn out between adverts and programmes. Subtitles can be good or useless. White letters against a white shirt are hopeless. Far better on a 'see-through ' dark backing. The ones you can switch on are good but not with the BBC news....they are totally out of sync and one news item runs well into the next one.
Grump !
|
"I also detest the word 'gotten'. "I had gotten ill over Christmas". What's wrong with "I got ill..."?"
Blame the Americans - in part.
The British used it, years ago, and our transatlantic friends took it with them. We dropped the ending, but they didn't, and now it's back. Actually, we didn't drop the ending completely - we continued to use it in the phrase "ill-gotten gains".
Last edited by: Focal Point on Thu 25 Jan 18 at 00:03
|
|
Its an Americanism that's been re-imported. The children in work use it - they're all graduates and should know better. The other thing with them is they have zero general knowledge. They may be awfully bright but they know b**** all.
|
As has been said it is not a modern invention, simply a usage that has fallen into disuse on this side of the Atlantic. It was used in the King James Bible so it’s certainly not an Americanism.
I thought that was general knowledge.
|
>> The other thing with them is they have zero general
>> knowledge. They may be awfully bright but they know b**** all.
Indeed. I've mentioned before I think that I work with a 27yo with a BA Hons in English, very bright and perfectly capable in her job . A reference to Lady Bracknell (Oscar Wilde) was totally lost on her.
Her degree was from Reading......
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 25 Jan 18 at 12:29
|
|
No much reading going on in Reading then.
|
>> No much reading going on in Reading then.
To be fair she was studying literature from a different period. OTOH I've never studied literature (in an academic sense) since failing my E.Lit O level in 1976 but I can still place Lady Bracknell and Wilde.
|
|
Is there such a thing as a period for literature? Ok it may go in fashionable genres, or even follow that of a cultural period, but at the end of the day its all linked.
|
"Is there such a thing as a period for literature?"
Yes and no. For convenience's sake, if nothing else, many university courses divide literature into historical periods, though where the divisions fall may be controversial.
Other ways of categorising literature may be by theme, or genre. Examples would be "Women writers" or "Sonnet", or a combination of chronology and theme/genre.
Of course it's all linked, but it's just too much of a vast lump to be approached without breaking it down. When you consider that university courses may cover literature from Anglo-Saxon times (including texts like Beowulf), via Middle English literature (Chaucer etc.) and then through better-known areas like Shakespeare and his contemporaries up to the present, and taking in literature written in English from outside the UK, like American literature - considering all that, it is a truly huge field.
After graduating in English Language and Literature and starting a career teaching up to university level, I was constantly reminded of how little I knew, and frequently had to read up on new stuff I wanted to teach.
|
Here is a quick list of British vs American spelling differences.
en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/british-and-american-terms
I usually find Amercian spelling easier.
Say for example musical terms
A quarter-note or half-note is far easiser to comprehend than Minim or Crotchet!
What does intrigue me though why both USA and UK retained imperial system. UK is more confusing as unlike USA, we use a combination of both eg mile, gallon, Celcius, lbs, kg etc. USA is not entirely imperial though - NASA uses metric system.
People become upset if I say km instead of mile yet even fever is now stated in C instead of F.
I find distances easier to measure in km instead of mile (something to do with me growing up using metric units only). Motorway average speed is 60 MPH or 100 km/h. So if a distance is 300 km over motorway I can immediately conclude it will take roughly 3 hours.
|
"What does intrigue me though why both USA and UK retained imperial system."
That's not really true, though. "Imperial" applies specifically to traditional UK units of measurement, which do not always equate with American. Take the gallon, for instance: 1 US gallon = 0.8327 UK gallon. The pint is similarly unequal. The US and the UK ton are not, or were not, equal. (Hasn't the imperial ton been replaced with the metric tonne?)
Last edited by: Focal Point on Thu 25 Jan 18 at 14:44
|
>>(Hasn't the imperial ton been replaced with the metric tonne?)<<
Yes, it has FP
Bridge heights are still a problem though.
Some in metric some imperial and although they should show both, in reality they don't.
Pat
|
>> "What does intrigue me though why both USA and UK retained imperial system."
>>
They don't. We all used the Queen Anne system, and the Americans continue to do so.
But we revised ours some time soon after American independence, to new slightly different Imperial units.
Hence different pints, quarts and gallons, and possibly other measures too - I don't know.
|
2018 irritations. - rtj70
