Talk:so
Add topicLatest comment: 1 month ago by Brett in topic Pro-form
Pro-form
[change]@Brett: Any thoughts on the newly added section? Victor Bob [talk] 14:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- My first thought is that it's better to consult and then edit, rather than edit and then consult.
- My second thought it that PRONOUN denotes a lexical category; PRO-FORM does not. A pro-form is a constituent that gets its meaning anaphorically. The set of pro-forms is a semantic set with no coherent syntactic properties. It would be suitable as a context tag, but not as a category.--Brett (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with you that PRO-FORM is a semantic term rather than a syntactic category. Nonetheless, the authors of CGEL (p. 1538) say that we prefer to classify anaphoric so simply as a pro-form. I don't really know why they make such a simple categorisation that I am not fully persuaded that so isn't a pronoun. Victor Bob [talk] 14:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- But again, that is a semantic classification. Pro-form is not one of their lexical categories. I read them as saying, we're not going to categorize it as a pronoun, but we'll note that it is semantically similar.--Brett (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, I noticed this discussion but the deictic and anaphoric uses of so are not listed in the definitions. I know the deictic use is an adverb, but what exactly is the lexical category of so for the anaphoric use? DontMindMeOkay (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Brett omg I’m losing sleep over this. I can’t find a satisfactory answer to this question. The CGEL seems to be leaning towards so being its own unique category. In page 1462, the lexical categories of all the other pro-forms are given except conspicuously for so. They simply say it is a pro-form. The SIEG2 doesn’t address this either, as far as I know.
- Also, while looking through the lexical index, I found two other meanings they mentioned: so having an “emotive meaning…” (pg 895) ‘So you have forgotten your homework again, have you?’; and the approximation meaning (pg 1304) ‘three or so’. I am not sure of the lexical category for both. DontMindMeOkay (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Once, many years ago, I asked Rodney about this directly, and he said "I'm not proud of our analysis of so." In other words, CGEL doesn't have a good answer. Perhaps, you do. Brett (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, I noticed this discussion but the deictic and anaphoric uses of so are not listed in the definitions. I know the deictic use is an adverb, but what exactly is the lexical category of so for the anaphoric use? DontMindMeOkay (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- But again, that is a semantic classification. Pro-form is not one of their lexical categories. I read them as saying, we're not going to categorize it as a pronoun, but we'll note that it is semantically similar.--Brett (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with you that PRO-FORM is a semantic term rather than a syntactic category. Nonetheless, the authors of CGEL (p. 1538) say that we prefer to classify anaphoric so simply as a pro-form. I don't really know why they make such a simple categorisation that I am not fully persuaded that so isn't a pronoun. Victor Bob [talk] 14:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)