|
|
hopefully
Hi,
<In 1996, Patricia T. O’Conner gave us the admirably entitled Woe Is I, aptly subtitled The Grammarphobe’s Guide to Better English in Plain English. In this lucid and sensible book she criticized the use of hopefully to mean It is hoped or I hope: 'Join the crowd and abuse hopefully if you want; I can’t stop you. But maybe if enough of us preserve the original meaning it can be saved. One can only hope.'>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hopefully
<1 : in a hopeful manner
2 : it is hoped : I hope : we hope <hopefully the rain will end soon>
usage
In the 1960s the second sense of hopefully, which dates to the early 18th century and had been in fairly widespread use since at least the 1930s, underwent a surge in popularity. A surge of criticism followed in reaction, but the criticism took no account of the grammar of adverbs. Hopefully in its second sense is a member of a class of adverbs known as disjuncts. Disjuncts serve as a means by which the author or speaker can comment directly to the reader or hearer usually on the content of the sentence to which they are attached. Many other adverbs (as interestingly, frankly, clearly, luckily, unfortunately) are similarly used; most are so ordinary as to excite no comment or interest whatsoever. The second sense of hopefully is entirely standard. >
What’s wrong with it, what’s the reason for the criticism?
Thanks.
I’ve found it.
< There are few issues of usage that are as contentious as the matter of hopefully; almost every modern style guide contains a paragraph warning of the objections of conservative grammarians to it.
…..
The dispute is comparatively recent. Even the Second Edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage of 1965 has no entry for sentence adverbs, let alone hopefully. In the USA, the tirade against it began around that date, reached a peak in the 1970s, and has substantially subsided since. In Britain, the fuss started rather later, and since the form was originally American, was also tinged with distrust of it as an upstart Americanism. The objection to it in the USA seem in part to have been based on a mistaken idea that it was a German term, hoffentlich, that had been transferred into English, so that arguments against it in the US were at times as chauvinistic as some of the later ones in Britain.
In its favour, hopefully conforms to a type of construction that is far from new, is a useful condensation of an idea that would otherwise require a wordy circumlocution, and is widely used. It is hard to provide much in the way of a list of objections save that it has become a shibboleth of correctness among conservative grammarians and stylists, which requires today’s writer, even forty years after the great witch hunt began, to be a little circumspect in bringing it into action.>
Michael Quinion,
http://www.worldwidewords.org/index.htm
"What’s wrong with it, what’s the reason for the criticism?"
WoW
I have often come across requests for help over what is essentially 'splitting hairs'. So when you ask the question, what is the reason for the criticism?
Some of is academic. Academics argue and discuss the finer elements of their subject. The irony is that a language like English is also used by a wider community who are not interested in what academics have to say.
In a forum where people Post obscenities what makes you think that you will get a sensible reply? Why should anyone spend time on a reply, or even on reading a Post, when the next Post might be pure rubbish?
The sort of English style guides that I would be more interested in reading are style guides written by journalists saying what is acceptable, what is unacceptable, and what constitutes 'Good English' in their profession or trade.
It might not come as a surprise to find that I have not read the books that I have bought. However the one closest to me is:
Collins
"Complete Writing Guide"
by Graham King
On sale at WH Smith
http://www.whsmith.co.uk/CatalogAndSearch/ProductDetails.aspx?productId=9780007288076&shop=10004&type=Froogle
Also on sale at Amazon
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Collins-Complete-Writing-Guide-Graham/dp/0007288077
Product details
* Paperback: 832 pages
* Publisher: Collins (5 Feb 2009)
* Language English
* ISBN-10: 0007288077
* ISBN-13: 978-0007288076
* Product Dimensions: 19.6 x 13 x 3.8 cm
<<<I have often come across requests for help over what is essentially 'splitting hairs'. So when you ask the question, what is the reason for the criticism?
Some of is academic. Academics argue and discuss the finer elements of their subject. The irony is that a language like English is also used by a wider community who are not interested in what academics have to say. >>>
People certainly care more about what academics have to say than about what a halfwit schizophrenic like you thinks.
<<In a forum where people Post obscenities what makes you think that you will get a sensible reply? Why should anyone spend time on a reply, or even on reading a Post, when the next Post might be pure rubbish? >>
Exactly what I thought.
In a forum where Robin Michael posts (note: no capital here, see?) boring, nonsensical spam what makes you think that you will get a sensible reply? Why should anyone spend time on a reply, or even on reading a post (note: no capital here, see?), when the next post (note: no capital here, see?) might be pure rubbish?
Yes, Why On Earth Is That Schizo Still Posting In A Forum Where People Post Obscenities?
Mr Yumbo Jumbo
How have you helped the person who started this Topic?
You can criticise but you cannot do anything constructive.
I read what 'H' had written. I gave my opinion. I then found more about the book he was talking about.
The book that he is talking about is a witty book about grammar.
'H' mentioned various disputes and arguments. But he was not very clear about what was being disputed or argued about.
The original book on grammar that he mentioned gets good reviews. The sort of people who criticise but have nothing positive to add are found on this forum.
<<How have you helped the person who started this Topic? >>
Should be:
How have you helped the person who started this topic?
No capital.
<<
H
What’s wrong with it, what’s the reason for the criticism?
Thanks.
>>
2 : it is hoped : I hope : we hope <hopefully the rain will end soon>
"hopefully being used as an adverb"
Hopefully in its second sense is a member of a class of adverbs known as disjuncts.
The second sense of hopefully is entirely standard.
*******************************************************
When people start using English in a new way, there is often critcism initially. But if this new way of using English becomes commonplace, then the new way becomes 'standard English'.
I am hoping to change the rules on Capitalistion, through my own efforts on Antimoon. I am hoping this new trend will catch on.
Teachers of English, particularly in foreign countries are often very orthodox and go by the book. For them, it is not a living language.
<<When people start using English in a new way, there is often critcism initially. But if this new way of using English becomes commonplace, then the new way becomes 'standard English'.
>>
Robin, I was trying to help you. You get annoyed when people are not constructive. Well, I was being constructive by helping you with your capitalisation issue and you're still not satisfied.
<<
I am hoping to change the rules on Capitalistion, through my own efforts on Antimoon. I am hoping this new trend will catch on. >>
Please, tell me you're not serious! You are not going to create a new trend. You just aren't.
<<Teachers of English, particularly in foreign countries are often very orthodox and go by the book. For them, it is not a living language. >>
And your English is 'living'? Sorry, but your English seems incredibly unnatural and contrived, I often find it hard to believe you are actually a native speaker.
Hopefully
What are the pros and cons of using hopefully as a sentence adverb?
http://www.worldwidewords.org/cgi-bin/wordsearch/wordsearch.pl?qy=hopefully&lg=Y&mg=ALL&cp=0
"The objection is not only to hopefully, though that word has suffered more than most, but to the twentieth-century fashion for a set of such words — which grammarians often call sentence adverbs — in which the word refers not just to one part of a sentence but to the whole construction."
This must be what the American conductor of the proms meant when he said that he had to get used to using 'adverbs' in Britain.
"There are perhaps a dozen or so that people use in this way, including frankly (“Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”), strictly (“Strictly, one ought not to use this construction”), thankfully (“Thankfully, the surfboard missed his head”), and actually (“Actually, I don’t really like taramasalata”)."
British people are famous for using the word 'actually'. That is why there is a very British film featuring Hugh Grant called 'Love Actually' (2003).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Actually
So possibly the roots of this controversy lie in the differences between British and American English.
I do appreciate your help with my capitalisation. In fact, your help came in very useful the other day. I was asked to sit an English Test. I noticed that a lot of the questions were on capitalisation.
It is nice to know that there are some White Anglo Saxon Protestants around in this increasingly multi racial and multi cultural world. I do not really include Damian as a W.A.S.P. As for myself, I am Church of England!
Language as you know is a very complex skill. Individual speakers are idio - something or other.
"In linguistics, an idiolect is a variety of a language unique to an individual. It is manifested by patterns of vocabulary or idiom selection (the individual's lexicon), grammar, or pronunciations that are unique to the individual."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiolect
Not 'idiot'
I am not an idiot!
How dare you infer that I am an idiot!
In revenge for your cruel and hurtful comments I will post obscenities and swastikas whenever I see your name.
|