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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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