Slate's language podcast Lexicon Valley did a whole episode on the trailing "so": http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2012/0...

They also covered what is, to me, an even weirder linguistic phenomenon, the common and growing use of "yeah, no" at the beginning of a response to somebody: http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2013/0...

I use this "yeah, no" construction myself quite a lot. I have a strong instinctive understanding of how to use it, and what it means. But I don't think I could consciously provide a decent explanation of why I'm saying both yes and no about something.

IME when we reply 'Yeah, no...', the first part isn't an affirmation, it's an acknowledgement that you have heard and understood the question.

Think of it as an informal but intimate way of speaking. If you just answered "No." it could come off a little bit cold or professional. By taking the time to use a few extra words you are showing more warmth to the asker.

this feels right to me.

"yes I have heard you, but I disagree with your point"

Something like: "did you try it this way?" "yeah, no that didn't work"

To me the initial "So..." is something that was very noticable in conference talks etc a few years ago. (Probably replaced now with "Whassup?", even when talking to a non-existant audince, i.e. by YouTubers)

"Yah, nah" is a very common Australian slang. Are you from the States by any chance?

I use this a lot, but I think it's a reasonable addition to the language. There's a suffix in Korean, "~는데," that's usually used between clauses to mean something like "although": I did Y even though X happened and stuff like that. But you can also use it at the end of the sentence, and I think the trailing "so..." is the closest English has to an equivalent of what that means.

What a coincidence. I'm Korean and I also use "...so" a lot!

* Korean has a handful of useful verb forms that can signal, let's say, the role a sentence should serve inside the dialogue: do you want to tell something the listener should know, or something that they're not expected to know, or to reassert something already said, or say something expecting an answer? In English, such distinctions usually disappear, unless you want to be really explicit, in which case you say stuff like "I mean"/"I can see that"/"Did you notice"/etc. However, when I want to make such a distinction I'm already halfway into a sentence, so it's too late for me to go back in time and attach the "proper" English phrase to the beginning.

This also exists in Japanese as が (ga) for the same exact thing ie connect two clauses and usually carrying "but" meaning; and also can be used without a second close, effectively ending the whole sentence.

This is not surprising given how close the grammar is said to be for this pair of languages and it's a nice feature for people learning both.

I have noticed that many sentences start with Yeah, at least for me. Usually around friends when there has been a silence. I always wondered if it was regional or just a weird thing I do, like affirming something before I said it out loud.

Another: In live commentary, particularly with interviews, watch how many people start sentences with "I mean, ..."

How about people beginning a sentence with "it's interesting, ..."

I've noticed a huge rise in people staring a response with "to be honest" or just "honestly".

A large number of my sentences begin with "To be [adjective]" or "In all [noun]".

"To be fair" and "In all honesty" (and combinations thereof) come up quite a bit.

Do you talk like that as well?

I used to pepper my comments with phrases like "to be honest" but I never use it in speech. I've tried to eliminate it recently because it usually isn't needed.

Yes, I do that in speech and written text. "However" is another one I use a lot.

For me, I think phrases like "however" and "to be fair" may come up a lot because I actively try to remain objective in conversations, and now I subconsciously add those into what I say as an indicator of considering different viewpoints. Then again, I may just be over-analyzing it.

(While we're at it, add "then again" to that list, haha.)

Oh jeez. However is something I do too.

There's a fair chance that you're meeting an increasing number of liars, then, as research (have a google) clearly shows that 'honestly' often precedes a lie, or at least shadings or untruth.

Related: a lot of people I talk to on Slack/text/etc seem to think most sentences should end in ellipses

You mean like this?

> Ellipses have their place, but they are also abused a lot…

This is a vague, non-committal statement. It looks as if the writer is afraid of the consequences of having an opinion!

Now the same sentence again, without the ellipses:

> Ellipses have their place, but they are also abused a lot.

A firm statement that shows you where the writer stands on the topic. Much better.

An ellipse in or at the end of a sentence means something is omitted, but it is also (unconsciously?) abused to try to make utterances less direct. Have you ever received a paragraph or two of text littered with those ellipses of avoidance? If you are well-read this likely conjures an image of some bored teen responding to a neighbour inquiring after the whereabouts of their parents:

> Yeah they're probably at home… I guess… Maybe not… Dunno…

…whereupon they promptly return their attention to their smartphone. Only it isn't a teenager; it is an adult colleague (not quite) giving their opinion on some topic.

Language does not have the sole purpose of making direct statements of fact though. Indirectness, in reasonable portions, is perfectly legitimate, especially because you often have to feel out your interlocutor's response to each line in your conversation - arguably, this is a more sophisticated use of language than straightforward statements or questions. In its natural environment, the trailing ellipsis serves a valuable role in signaling a willingness to change your mind, or at least a sensitivity to the other party's reactions and positions. I agree that a lot of people overuse them - in most cases, you should be able to get away with just using it after your thesis, so to speak.

> Ellipses have their place, but they seem to be abused a lot.

> Ellipses have their place, but I get the impression that they are also abused a lot.

> Ellipses have their place, but aren't they also abused a lot?

> Ellipses have their place, but maybe they are abused a bit too much.

I agree, sometimes a statement needs to be softened to indicate uncertainty or just to be diplomatic, but there are many ways to do that without resorting to ambiguity. Perhaps, maybe, seemingly, ostensibly, surely, evidently; there are so many words that can help soften (or harden!) a statement, and each carries a different connotation. The ellipse on the other hand simple conveys its meaning of omission — but there is no indication of what it was that was omitted (uncertainty? rolling-my-eyes sarcasm? fatigue?).

It can come across as laziness on the writer's part — as if they couldn't be bothered to formulate their thoughts.

I sometimes soften a criticism here on HN simply by putting a question mark at the end?

I've noticed that I tend to avoid the period/full stop when writing instant messages like that. Like, exclamation marks and question marks go just fine, but a period will make it sound very weird in my head when it's in an IM conversation, for some reason. I will even start a new sentence on a new line without a period after the last sentence if I need to write multiple sentences in one message (which doesn't happen that often though).

I don't know why.

My first thought is that it's a way to encourage a response.

The ellipsis also seems to soften the tone compared to a regular period.

I've always wanted a double-o form of "so" to match "to/too" when it's used as a measure of degree. "Summer vacation is soo far away!"