Belligerati

« Is it just me or is everyone talking about religion these days? | Main | They use the same pieces but are they playing the same game? »

September 22, 2005

Defending English?

The title of a recent cover of Time Magazine is "System Failure: An investigation into what went so wrong in New Orleans"
I was always taught that it was a sign of uneducated or too casual speech to use "so" to mean "very". But when I mentioned it to my father (who probably taught me that rule) he said that in this case, the "so" implied a "that" which was omitted. Even so, that's not an effective and proper way to communicate in a cover, as the "that" implied by the "so" isn't obvious. Do they mean "that even the federal government couldn't help", or perhaps that "that people would behave that way"? It seems it could go in several directions.

Dictionary.com takes a softer stance:

Critics have sometimes objected to the use of so as an intensive meaning “to a great degree or extent,” as in We were so relieved to learn that the deadline had been extended. This usage is most common in informal contexts, perhaps because, unlike the neutral very, it presumes that the listener or reader will be sympathetic to the speaker's evaluation of the situation. Thus one would be more apt to say It was so unfair of them not to invite you than to say It was so fortunate that I didn't have to put up with your company. For just this reason, the construction may occasionally be used to good effect in more formal contexts to invite the reader to take the point of view of the speaker or subject:The request seemed to her to be quite reasonable; it was so unfair of the manager to refuse.

I'm a stickler, but the benefits or too much stickling far outweigh that of too little in a global language like English.

Posted by OneEyedMan at September 22, 2005 11:52 AM

Comments

Post a comment