In the early 1960s the second sense of hopefully, which had been in sporadic use since around 1932, underwent a surge of popular use. A surge of popular 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.»
I'm buying what Websters is selling, because it matches what I've read in several modern grammar books.
While (a) I agree with Webster's in this case, and (b) I'm usually a prescriptivist jackass and I *still* agree with M-W here, I should point out that since the 1960s M-W has been a descriptive and not a prescriptive dictionary, and therefore its usage rules reflect common usage, not grammatical correctness.
It's grammatically equivalent, but they have completely different connotations. For one, the general implication in "Hopefully" is "I hope", not "It is hoped", at least, as I know and use it.
If you want me to be *more* pedantic, I'll have to whip out my official pedant button.
Well--I said "yes", but really it means "I, the speaker, hope that..." You can't say "Hopefully, I'll die" just because it's hoped by someone that you'll die. (And note that it can't be embedded: "Mary believes that hopefully she will arrive on time" does not mean either "Mary beleves that it is hoped that she will arrive on time", or "Mary believes that she hopes that she will arrive on time", or even "Mary believes she will arrive on time, and I hope she will.)
As taskboy says, this is one of a number of "speaker-oriented adverbs"; for instance, "frankly" has no paraphrase "It is frank that...", but means only "I, the speaker, am being frank when I say..." These share the above properties--they must refer to the speaker's opinions, and they can't be embedded.
I'd say other in that I'm not sure THAT usage of "It is hoped" is right, but I have frequently heard "It is hoped you will/can attend" and seen it as some sort of more formal way to say "Hopefully", which in that case sounds a bit, I don't know, rude?
I do use it in speech, and parse it just fine whenever someone else uses it. However, I've become so sensitized to this usage that in any more considered context, I tend to rephrase it as "I am hopeful that..." -- which is usually the point anyway.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Hopefully, we've moved beyond pendantry
Let the grammatical smack-down begin.
From Websters online:
I'm buying what Websters is selling, because it matches what I've read in several modern grammar books.
Re: Hopefully, we've moved beyond pendantry
no subject
If you want me to be *more* pedantic, I'll have to whip out my official pedant button.
no subject
As taskboy says, this is one of a number of "speaker-oriented adverbs"; for instance, "frankly" has no paraphrase "It is frank that...", but means only "I, the speaker, am being frank when I say..." These share the above properties--they must refer to the speaker's opinions, and they can't be embedded.
no subject
no subject
Have to dig into the book (Eats, shoots and leaves) I recently picked to get a better handle on the current thoughts about it.
Seems to be a word in transition as to its accepted use.
no subject
no subject
no subject