so = 'absolutely; utterly; such'

[Ben Zimmer]

I think I see JL's point now. When preceding a predicate NP introduced
by an article (as opposed to "not..."), new-style "so" might sound
odder than usual, in a spot where one might expect emphatic "such"
instead: "Today is *such* a cuddle day." Perhaps the
microsyntacticians at Yale can figure out if that variety of "so" is
less favored than others. Compare:

"I am so a drama queen" (1,210 ghits)
"I am such a drama queen" (55,600 ghits)

--bgz


On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>
> And one of its paradigmatic characteristics is its frequent use also
> before "not."
>
> Cf. colloq./SE "This is so crazy" with slang/colloq. "This is so not crazy."
>
> I'm not sure that 'definitely' is a "better" gloss, but it is a helpful one.
>
> (N.b., *not* "soooo a helpful one," in part because that is almost as
> likely to sound ironic. Or - as they say - is it just me?)
>
> JL
>
> >
> > On Dec 9, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> >
> >> It's noteworthy because it feels completely ungrammatical - certainly
> >> before the indefinite article.
> >>=20
> >> Maybe 'so very much' is a better definition.
> >>=20
> >>=20
> > I don't think so, because standard use of "so very much" is scalar or =
> > gradable, while the Gen-X or Drama "so" (cf. e.g. =
> > http://microsyntax.sites.yale.edu/drama-so), appearing before predicate =
> > nominal DPs ("the opposite", "a cuddle day") or not, isn't restricted to =
> > gradable contexts.  Cf. e.g. "That's so not the right answer".   "He's =
> > so not Mr. Right".  'definitely' is a better gloss than 'so very much', =
> > I'd argue.  Or late 60's Californian 'fer sher'.
> >
> > LH
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Ben Zimmer
> >> <bgzimmer at babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote:
> >>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header =
> > -----------------------
> >>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> >>> Poster:       Ben Zimmer <bgzimmer at BABEL.LING.UPENN.EDU>
> >>> Subject:      Re: so =3D 'absolutely; utterly; such'
> >>> =
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> > -----
> >>>=20
> >>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> >>>>=20
> >>>> The news-gatherers at CNN report that international cultural
> >>>> super-icon Snooki has tweeted "I love my tattoos" and "Today is =
> > soooo
> >>>> [sic] a cuddle day."
> >>>>=20
> >>>> The use of endemic current "so" (or, as usu. pronounced,
> >>>> /sou::::::::::/ [more or less]) immediately before an article is new
> >>>> to me.
> >>>=20
> >>> Well, what Arnold terms "GenX so" has been modifying predicate NPs =
> > for
> >>> quite a while -- I'm not sure why the presence of an article =
> > modifying
> >>> the NP would be especially noteworthy. The OED cites an example that
> >>> Jesse uncovered from 1979, in the Woody Allen movie _Manhattan_: "Oh,
> >>> please, you know. God, you're so the opposite!"
> >>>=20
> >>> --bgz

--
Ben Zimmer
http://benzimmer.com/

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org