BaL 4.01.20 - Elgar: Enigma Variations

[vinteuil]

One for Pedants' Paradise really, but "so" used in this way is an adverb.

... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_(sentence_opener)


I think linguisticians might regard it as an expletive or filler : a null term, allowing the speaker time to gather thoughts, like "erm... "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expletive

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filler_(linguistics)

.

[Bryn]

Where's the mystery? "So" in such circumstances is simply an interjection.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Where's the mystery? "So" in such circumstances is simply an interjection.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I have come to the conclusion that So at the beginning of sentence when spoken is one of those devices used to give the speaker thinking time rather like “may it please your lordship “ in court or “Mr Speaker “ in Parliament .
Perhaps it’s also an echo of Biblical verses that begin with So and (so) is intended to give the speaker a air of spurious quasi-godlike authority .
Whatever it is it is quite incredibly irritating,,,

[vinteuil]

Where's the mystery? "So" in such circumstances is simply an interjection.

... "simply"? - I bet doctoral theses have been written on the subject!


.

[teamsaint]

I think that “So” at the beginning of a sentence is often used to denote that what follows , in an often noisy world ( EG BBC interviews with constant interruptions) is a significant contribution, and not just filler.

If it has real value as a device, it will stay in use, if not it will be replaced by something else .

Railing against such things seems like a tremendous waste of energy to me.

[gurnemanz]

Everybody has speech tics, most of which are unconscious, which may or may not be irksome to others. My wife sometimes asks me why I keep saying "OK". I am probably trying to give the impression that things are under control ... which they frequently aren't.

You would surely expect that these tics of colloquial speech will be weeded out in formal writing or scripted radio broadcasts.

[ardcarp]

I'm surprised that 'so' became adopted so [ho ho] rapidly by (presumably academically trained) experts when answering questions in a public forum. I think maybe they think it will give them more gravitas.

I know we've just got to grin and bear it, but it's so, so annoying.

[Oakapple]

Is it?? (Which "verb" is being "ad-ed" in such a context?)

That's a very simple way of looking at an adverb. There's more to one than just modifying a verb.

You're all wrong. I refer you to section 9 of Collins online dictionary:

9. ADVERB
You can use so in conversations to introduce a new topic, or to introduce a question or comment about something that has been said.
So how was your day?
So you're a runner, huh?
So as for your question, Miles, the answer still has to be no.
So, as I said to you, natural medicine is also known as holistic medicine.

[visualnickmos]

What on earth is all the fuss about? Language is a rich palette of verbal colours......

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

You're all wrong. I refer you to section 9 of Collins online dictionary:

Collins dictionary is riddled with doubtful things. They even said "obv" was a word.

But there's no way the use of "so" in those examples can be justified as an adverb. A conjunction with an imaginary earlier sentence perhaps, or just verbal padding (like starting a reply to a question with "well").

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Collins dictionary is riddled with doubtful things. They even said "obv" was a word.

But there's no way the use of "so" in those examples can be justified as an adverb. A conjunction with an imaginary earlier sentence perhaps, or just verbal padding (like starting a reply to a question with "well").

in all particulars. (I wouldn't trust anything that had its origins in one of Murdoch's publications.)

[Nimrod]

Quite absurd to overlook these Enigma giants.

Well, it seems Record Review will never be the same again and what a shame?! We now have this two-fer presentation and, as someone has already pointed out, it seems aimed at a young audience and with a sort of educational focus. R-R was always an interesting listen when one learned person played a whole range of recordings (in this case Michael Kennedy?), and not a selected few of (mainly it seems) recent recordings. So on this occasion we have (OMG, I'm listening to it as I write and she's selected the Bernstein Nimrod as some sort of monstrous example of how NOT to play it!).
And in all of this as mentioned before, no Boult or Barbirolli. Surely the Halle 1956 performance with Barbirolli should never be omitted from a review of Enigma nor the EMI Philharmonia nor the Boult 1972 (I think that's the date)? And where's Andrew Davis? Barbirolli conducted this work no less than 266 times so must be regarded as a major interpreter. OMG she has just selected Monteux with only a verbal reference to his peers. Sorry, but this is an awful way to carry on with Record Review.

[ardcarp]

Knowing that the BBC is obsessed by stats, they must know the percentage of, say, 15 - 30 year olds who listen to Radio 3 . I guess it's quite small...but then it always has been. I was one such statistic in Third Programme days () and so were a few of my schoolfriends. I guess as a percentage of the UK population we were in a cohort followed by a decimal point....and possible by a zero as well. However young people have this uncanny knack of GROWING UP. I see no reason why R3 should not slant a few programmes (e.g. presented by Jess Gillam for whom I have great respect) at a young audience. But youngsters absolutely HATE being pandered to, and they can spot adults trying to be cool a mile off. Given that playlist programmes (Oh God...Sunday Morning this morning) are becoming increasingly chatty and giggly, surely it is possible to reserve a few slots for those who want a deeper and more considered discussion of musical matters? A more cynical person than I might suspect R3 has a mission to infantilise adults.......

[Alison]

And there was me naively thinking in 2012 that Tony Hall would make sure classical did ok