The meat must have been slow cooked

[alpacinou]

Is this sentence correct? :

The meat was so tender. It must have been slow cooked.

Do I need hyphen between slow and cooked?

 

[alpacinou]

I'd use a hyphen.

Other than that it's perfectly okay?

 

[Rover_KE]

Yes.

 

[Tdol]

You could use a semicolon after tender.

 

[alpacinou]

You could use a semicolon after tender.

May I ask why?

 

[jutfrank]

You could use a semicolon after tender.

I wouldn't advise that.

Semi-colons are useful in writing that has at least some degree of formality. I don't think it is appropriate to use a semi-colon to transcribe casual speech, which I assume this is.

 

[emsr2d2]

When I first read it, I thought there were three ways this could be written.

1. That meat was so tender! It must have been slow-cooked.
2. That meat was so tender; it must have been slow-cooked.
3. That meat was so tender [that] it must have been slow-cooked.

There is no difference in meaning between 1 and 2, but 3 is a bit different. Can you work out why?

 

[jutfrank]

I not infrequently use semi-colons regardless of the formality of the writing or of what I'm writing about.

Yes, I've noticed that there are a few members of this forum who do the same.

 

[alpacinou]

When I first read it, I thought there were three ways this could be written.

1. That meat was so tender! It must have been slow-cooked.
2. That meat was so tender; it must have been slow-cooked.
3. That meat was so tender [that] it must have been slow-cooked.

There is no difference in meaning between 1 and 2, but 3 is a bit different. Can you work out why?

Honestly, I cannot tell the difference between 2 and 3 !

 

[jutfrank]

Honestly, I cannot tell the difference between 2 and 3 !

I don't blame you. Neither can I! In fact, I'm pretty sure that there isn't a difference in meaning (although there is a difference in use).

In both sentences, the latter clause is a logical deduction from the former. A different way to express both sentences is: It is not possible for the meat not to have been slow-cooked, given its tenderness.

If this is something that is imagined to be spoken informally, I think 3 best represents what the speaker is really trying to say. Rather confusingly, in informal speech, it is quite natural to omit the conjunction that in so ... that ... patterns. In writing, it is generally advisable not to omit the word that in so ... that... patterns.

There are two difficult issues here, as I see it.

1) Style differences between written and spoken discourse. By this, I mean that a written transcription of what is imagined to be a spoken utterance belongs to the world of spoken, not written discourse. My earlier advice about the use of semi-colons was meant to be taken with this in mind.

2) Whether we would recommend using a comma to represent those spoken utterances that omit the conjunction that in so ... that ... patterns. I personally don't think it's necessary.

After saying all that, it is quite possible that alpacinoutd intended there to be two separate sentences. If this is the case, the word so takes on a different role (as a simple intensifier) and correspondingly has a different intonation. Without having access to the pronunciation, we cannot be sure which was the intention.


alpacinoutd—could you tell us a little more about what you mean to say? How exactly are you trying to use so?

 

[Tarheel]

The meat was so tender it must have been slow-cooked.

 

[Tarheel]

Honestly, I cannot tell the difference between 2 and 3!

:-D

 

[alpacinou]

After saying all that, it is quite possible that alpacinoutd intended there to be two separate sentences. If this is the case, the word so takes on a different role (as a simple intensifier) and correspondingly has a different intonation. Without having access to the pronunciation, we cannot be sure which was the intention.


alpacinoutd—could you tell us a little more about what you mean to say? How exactly are you trying to use so?

Thanks a lot.

I meant to use so as an intensifier.

 

[jutfrank]

I see. In that case, you were right to use two separate sentences. But do you see how emsr2d2's suggestion of using an exclamation mark at the end of the first sentence (variation 1 from post #8) helps the reader to know that that is what you meant?

 

[alpacinou]

I see. In that case, you were right to use two separate sentences. But do you see how emsr2d2's suggestion of using an exclamation mark at the end of the first sentence (variation 1 from post #8) helps the reader to know that that is what you meant?

Yes. But this is not for writing. Actually spoken.

Thanks a lot