Is it OK to use so twice in immediate succession?

I'm not saying so, so you quit your job.

And does it sound better with this in place of the first so?

  • It is not clear what you are trying to say in your example sentence. Please add more detail. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Jan 29 '17 at 11:55
  • Why? doesn't the first so refer to something said earlier, and the second a conjunction meaning "with the intent that"? – Rose Jan 29 '17 at 12:00
  • 2
    The two clauses of your sentence do not seem logically related. Also, the progressive is confusing in the first clause. She did not wear a jacket, so she got cold when the day became cloudy. Your first clause does not seem to be an explanation for fact expressed in the second clause, in that manner. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Jan 29 '17 at 12:05
  • 2
    It would be perfectly acceptable to say: I didn't say so, so don't blame me". Or to say: *The children have been so, so good! – Ronald Sole Jan 29 '17 at 13:29
  • Are you trying to say "I did not tell you to quit your job" or "I'm not saying (that) you should quit your job" ? – Tᴚoɯɐuo Jan 29 '17 at 13:42

It is possible to have so, so in a sentence. However what you are trying to say (looking at your comment on your question): "I didn't say that, so that (= to make) you quit." asks for different wording, for example:

  • "I didn't say that to make you quit."
  • "I didn't say that, for you to quit."

The problem is, in a sentence like "He did that, so she did that." in English this means, he did something and then as a matter of fact she did something in reaction. In other languages the word so after the comma may imply that his intention was that she would react, but in English this is not the case!

  • What if we add will: He did that (yawned), so she will do this (leave)? doesn't this make so introduce a desired effect? And is so that different from so? As in, I'm giving you more information, so (that) you will understand it better. Doesn't so that introduce a desired effect, that is to help/make you understand. – Rose Jan 30 '17 at 5:35
  • 1
    yes, so that is different from simply so! Without that it is really only telling what the logical consequence is and not implying an intention. – Michael Paul Jan 30 '17 at 6:25
  • +1 for better suggestions. There is extra ambiguity in the original sentence because "quit" has the same form for present and past tense. This answer's suggestions avoid this ambiguity. – Paul Dexter Jul 17 '18 at 1:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.