What is it that is behind the latest affectation, the addition of a conjunction, SO, at the beginning of a sentence?  This is a purely verbal affliction at the moment, and almost exclusively in answer to a direct question e.g. “What do you think of..”, answer “So, …

It’s a sort of punctuation device, but it somehow is meant to impart a level of expertise in the respondent – and often it seems the context of some scientific / quasi scientific topic.


Update 16 May 2014

Surprise, surprise: BBC Breakfast today ran an item on this very topic, including an interview / contribution from an “expert”.  Maybe I’m not so curmudgeonly after all,

Mis-speaking is rife – why?

I find myself increasingly challenged to keep silent when I hear (not here), apparently educated, people ‘mis-speak’.  The majority of these linguistic errors go un-noticed because there is no verbal or audible difference – it is only context that clarifies the meaning.  For example ‘their’, ‘there’ and ‘they’re’ all sound the same, but are completely different in written usage and meaning.  Yet, worryingly, these words seem to be interchangeable in there (ha ha) written expression; even more worrying is that these errors go un-noticed in published documents, advertising, or on web-sites, that ought to be, and probably are, proof read by somebody who clearly doesn’t know either.

Common errors are confusing complimentary with complementary.  The tickets are complementary (wrong).  It’s a complimentary therapy (wrong). How about sight and site (he was a pitiful site – wrong) , slither and sliver (‘I’ll have a slither of cake’ – wrong), home and hone (I’ll hone in on a solution – wrong). The ship floundered on the rocks (wrong – should be foundered).  He was the font of all knowledge (wrong).  What about the difference between affect and effect?  Is Brexit going to effect my income (wrong)?  I know english is littered with opportunities for confusion when the words sound identical, such as cache and  cash, but there is no excuse for not knowing the difference in writing.

I’m not apologetic for blaming educationalists (as opposed to teachers) who decided that it was better to encourage expression at the expense of correctness or correction.  It is almost as if English is now being taught (or should that be tort) in schools as if it were a foreign language.  It doesn’t matter if it is correct as long as you are understood.  I don’t believe it really serves the long-term interests of the educationally challenged (whether for reasons of age, opportunity, ethnicity or intellectual capacity) to abandon correct grammar or English usage.  Don’t they realise that, eventually, these mistakes will mark people out as poorly educated and, consequently, limit they’re (ha ha) opportunities  anyway?

The rise of abbreviated “text-speak” in more general written communication, and acceptance of American, or advertising gimmick language as correct usage, is part of the problem.  Why, for example, when we mean ‘light’ is it clearer / better / more acceptable to use ‘lite’?  I know people who text “Yeah” rather than  “Yes” even tho it’s 1 mo lttr.

Recently (19 January) I saw a  short TV discussion, about an English council’s decision to drop apostrophes from road signs.  The protagonists were well selected, perhaps subliminally signalling the BBC editor’s position: a crusty old academic representing the case for retention and a thrusting young educationalist arguing for the general irrelevance of apostrophes.  I’d like to know how he would feel if the terms and conditions of his next internet purchase (or his contract of employment) were ambiguous because of punctuation error?  Of course, that’s a bit simplistic – presumably nobody would  seriously argue for less than clear grammar, vocabulary, or punctuation in communication of legal significance – but the foundation of being able to safely relax or ‘play with’ our language is knowing what the rools are and being abel to ewes them.  BAA