 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009use of "hopefully"
Can any of you tell me in detail why "hopefully" is not considered proper english. If it means "it is hoped," then why is that improper? > Can any of you tell me in detail why "hopefully" is not considered proper > english. > > If it means "it is hoped," then why is that improper? This is a dispute that began forty years or so ago. Not everyone agrees that it is improper to use "hopefully" to start a sentence, which I assume is the usage you ask about. If you go to the AUE Website http://alt-usage-english.org/index.shtml and type the word into the Quick Search box, you'll turn up some good detailed articles. The first is from World Wide Words by Michael Quinion, and the next is from Mark Israel's AUE FAQ.  SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> Can any of you tell me in detail why "hopefully" is not considered >> proper english. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > detailed articles. The first is from World Wide Words by Michael > Quinion, and the next is from Mark Israel's AUE FAQ. Mark says The OED's first citation for "hopefully" in the passive sense (= "It is to be hoped that") is from 1932, but no unmistakable citation has been found between then and 1954. I see one hit that looks pretty unmistakable from the nineteenth century: [Attn Jesse Sheidlower: OED antedating] Hopefully it will bring it to pass that more and more of us preserve the docility an inventiveness of children until we die; that when we are adult our speech shall preserve our young facility of invention; and, which is the sum, that we never do two pieces of work alike, but that each exertion may be some fresh and original action of a mind always inventive, creative, and faithful. Charles Hamlin, "Nature Study in the Public Schools", _Education_, November, 1898 but nothing after that until the 1950s. The "it" here would appear to be a particular education philosophy, which doesn't seem to be easily readable as being hopeful in and of itself. The author is described as associated with Easthampton, Massachusetts. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There are just two rules of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |governance in a free society: Mind Palo Alto, CA 94304 |your own business. Keep your hands |to yourself. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >Can any of you tell me in detail why "hopefully" is not considered proper >english. > >If it means "it is hoped," then why is that improper? When the sentence adverb "hopefully" was first heard in Britain it was considered improper because (a) it was new; (b) it came from America; (c) it ultimately came from German "hoffentlich". For many people, those reasons were sufficient to condemn the usage. Other objections on more formal grounds were: 1. That it could be ambiguous, capable of interpretation in the way the adverb of manner "hopefully" had always been used (as in an example from Arthur Ransome, "I moved to the East Coast, and in 1938 hopefully built another boat"). 2. That it did not follow the pattern of existing sentence adverbs. "Regrettably" and "Fortunately" can be regarded as shortened forms of "It is regrettable/fortunate that...", but it doesn't make sense to say "It is hopeful that..." By now most British English speakers are blissfully unaware of the origin of the sentence adverbs "hopefully" and "thankfully" and would see little merit in objections 1-2 above. SignatureJames (BrE with a distinctly septentrional flavour) > > Can any of you tell me in detail why "hopefully" is not considered > > proper english. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it was considered improper because (a) it was new; (b) it came > from America; You mean... it was... language innovation... from America!!! ARGH!!! ARGH! ARGH! ARRRRGH!!!! Sorry about that, must be getting my threads mixed up, I'll feel better in a minute... DC -- >>> Can any of you tell me in detail why "hopefully" is not considered >>> proper english. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Sorry about that, must be getting my threads mixed up, I'll feel better > in a minute... ITYM "momentarily". SignatureDavid > > > > Can any of you tell me in detail why "hopefully" is not > > > > considered proper english. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > ITYM "momentarily". I put it down to the mushrooms. -- > > > > Can any of you tell me in detail why "hopefully" is not > > > > considered proper english. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > ITYM "momentarily". Just on a side thing, David, do you know what the umrats mean by 'TBMG'? DC -- >>>>> Can any of you tell me in detail why "hopefully" is not >>>>> considered proper english. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Just on a side thing, David, do you know what the umrats mean by 'TBMG'? Nope, sorry. There are still many, many such abbreviations which I don't yet understand. I'm learning by immersion, rather than by asking questions. SignatureDavid > > > > > > Can any of you tell me in detail why "hopefully" is not > > > > > > considered proper english. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > don't yet understand. I'm learning by immersion, rather than by > asking questions. Ta anyway... -- >Django Cat wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >don't yet understand. I'm learning by immersion, rather than by >asking questions. If it's a complaint, that bugs me greatly. If not, not. SignaturePaul > Just on a side thing, David, do you know what the umrats mean by 'TBMG'? I do. But I'm not telling you. Yah boo sux! Oh, alright I will. "The Beetle Must Go". SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > > Just on a side thing, David, do you know what the umrats mean by > > 'TBMG'? > > I do. But I'm not telling you. Yah boo sux! > > Oh, alright I will. "The Beetle Must Go". Thanks, Nick, I was going to ask you next. Would the Beetle - nemesis of the doom tune - be the current producer? DC -- >> > Just on a side thing, David, do you know what the umrats mean by >> > 'TBMG'? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Would the Beetle - nemesis of the doom tune - be the current producer? Yes. She's Vanessa Whitburn. This apparently was abbreviated to VW and hence became "The Beetle" well before I became an umrat (back in late 1999 I think). SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > >> > Just on a side thing, David, do you know what the umrats mean by > >> > 'TBMG'? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and hence became "The Beetle" well before I became an umrat (back in > late 1999 I think). Ah ha. Thanks, I can now go forth and lurk once more... DC I liked 'Curtains for Annette'. -- >You mean... it was... language innovation... from America!!! > >ARGH!!! ARGH! ARGH! ARRRRGH!!!! America, Land of Innovation. HTH,HAND. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > When the sentence adverb "hopefully" was first heard in Britain > it was considered improper because (a) it was new; (b) it came > from America; (c) it ultimately came from German "hoffentlich". > For many people, those reasons were sufficient to condemn the > usage. Not just in Britain. Strunk & White condemned it, even in the 1979 edition. (I haven't seen the more recent ones; maybe that's been revised out.) SignatureNo right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution. I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be prevented. [Whitfield Diffie] > Other objections on more formal grounds were: > ... > 2. That it did not follow the pattern of existing sentence > adverbs. "Regrettably" and "Fortunately" can be regarded as > shortened forms of "It is regrettable/fortunate that...", but it > doesn't make sense to say "It is hopeful that..." The closest analog among established sentence adverbs seem to me to be "Frankly". It certainly doesn't mean "It is frank that", and it is arguable that it means "To be frank" or "If I may be frank" & that "Hopefully" means "To be hopeful" or "If I may be hopeful". That seems a bit strained, tho; to me, the most natural expansion of "Hopefully" is "It may be hoped that". Thus, I incline to the theory that it is a mistake for "Hopably", possibly under the influence of "Hoffentlich", or possibly just because "hopably" was not available without our first taking the trouble to invent "hopable". Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: Felicificity: Happiness per unit luck. :|| > > Other objections on more formal grounds were: > > ... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The closest analog You don't use "analogue" for a term in an analogy and "analog" for the opposite of "digital"? > among established sentence adverbs seem to me to be > "Frankly". Among upstart sentence adverbs, the closest may be "Thankfully", as in "Thankfully, the wind died down." (=SailboatE "Thankfully, the wind picked up.") I do not like it in a box, I do not like it with a fox, but nobody asks me. > It certainly doesn't mean "It is frank that", and it is > arguable that it means "To be frank" or "If I may be frank" & that > "Hopefully" means "To be hopeful" or "If I may be hopeful". That > seems a bit strained, tho; to me, the most natural expansion of > "Hopefully" is "It may be hoped that". Or "I hope that", which sometimes has the advantage of not implying everyone shares the speaker's hope. > Thus, I incline to the theory > that it is a mistake for "Hopably", possibly under the influence of > "Hoffentlich", or possibly just because "hopably" was not available > without our first taking the trouble to invent "hopable". I'd guess something very similar. People just wanted a short way to say "It is to be hoped", and "hopefully" was the only existing word that could work. -- Jerry-Friedman-I-am. > You don't use "analogue" for a term in an analogy and "analog" for > the opposite of "digital"? No. I think that's a British nicety. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: Betting is popular because hoping is more fun than :|| ||: wishing. :|| >> You don't use "analogue" for a term in an analogy and "analog" for >> the opposite of "digital"? > > No. I think that's a British nicety. Not even that as far as I know. BrE just uses "analogue" for everything. You may be thinking of "program[me]" where we have adopted the US spelling for a new and technical use, while still using the traditional one for the old(er) meanings. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >>> You don't use "analogue" for a term in an analogy and "analog" for >>> the opposite of "digital"? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the US spelling for a new and technical use, while still using the >traditional one for the old(er) meanings. But an SOED seems not to agree with you. It's main entry for 'analogue' says: | analogue ... n. & a. | Also (US & also gen. in Computing) -log. Their 'gen.' stands for 'generally.' OTOH, m-w.com says | Main Entry: an.a.logue | Variant(s): or an.a.log | Function: noun A separate main entry says: | Main Entry: analog computer | Function: noun So the difference doesn't even seem to be pondifical, except that AmE seems to be more tolerant of the variant '-og' for general use than is BrE. But m-w.com still seems to prefer 'analogue' for the general meaning. SignatureEgbert White | "In the end we will remember not the words WAmE | of our enemies, but the silence of our | friends." <Martin Luther King> >> You don't use "analogue" for a term in an analogy and "analog" for >> the opposite of "digital"? > > No. I think that's a British nicety. I don't think so. I seem to make that same distinction. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |We never met anyone who believed in 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |fortune cookies. That's astounding. Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Belief in the precognitive powers |of an Asian pastry is really no kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |wackier than belief in ESP, (650)857-7572 |subluxation, or astrology, but you |just don't hear anyone preaching http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |Scientific Cookie-ism. | Penn and Teller > Can any of you tell me in detail why "hopefully" is not considered proper > english. Those who consider it not proper English (note caps) are people who never understood sentential adverbs. > If it means "it is hoped," then why is that improper? It isn't. In spite of that, some people, including me, avoid this use of 'hopefully'. There are two reasons. The irrational one is that 'hopefully' just before the subject of a sentence strikes me as modifying the subject rather than the sentence. A more rational one is that there are many people who think that it is wrong, and I don't need whatever I mean to say or write being lost in a negative reaction to an avoidable construction. >> Can any of you tell me in detail why "hopefully" is not considered proper >> english. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >whatever I mean to say or write being lost in a negative reaction to an >avoidable construction. My position exactly. I see nothing intrinsically wrong with "hopefully" but I avoid using it where I know it's unwelcome. For the same reason I try to never split infinitives. SignatureJames |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.