Thing is, screeds like the OP aren’t about making language easier to understand. Every dumbass who speaks English as her native tongue knows what you mean when you modify a clause with “hopefully.” There’s no stumbling over the word at all, unless you’ve been miseducated to believe you should stumble over it. It’s like objecting to “more unique,” or split infinitives, or something equally innocuous.
If you want to complain about the loss of the subjunctive, I’m right there with you. I can, reluctantly, see folks’ disappointment with the new meaning of “comprise.” And when I worked as a writing tutor, I was merciless toward unclear prose.
But when folks lose sight of the goals–expression, communication, and aesthetics–then I get annoyed.
Ditto. And I feel exactly the same way about “hopefully/I hope”.
I would venture to guess that for 90% of Americans, they perceive no difference between the phrases “I hope…”, “I am hopeful…”, “I hope…”, and “Hopefully, I…”.
Sheesh. Type “hope” enough times in a row and it doesn’t even look like a real word anymore.
No, because I can say “go lie down” or “go lay down” and not be misunderstood. If I say “go nkjwdpo down”, no one would have any idea what that was supposed to mean.
These debates always swing between the specific examples and general claims on the “Language changes” and “But this is right” sides. I suggest that anyone who is interested in language criticism read “Doing Our Own Thing” a book by John McWhorter, a linguist. The premise of the book is that America is swinging from a written to a spoke culture. There are problems with his arguments, and some of his sub-themes (such as loss of love for English in America), but it is a well informed discussion of general trends from someone who understands language.
I agree that the handed down rules, puffed up preferences though they are, must be known by those seeking to express themselves to educated audiences. Formal rules of written English, including rules of usage and composition, are important strictures in the same way the rules of etiquette are important. Both constrain natural behavior in an arbitrary way, but for an over all enhancement of experience when used.
In spoken language the rules are in the brain and no where else. What works works. Conventions are fluid, easy for fluent speakers to pick up on, and should not be fretted over. It is not possible to influence the spoken language by joyless and pedantic rants. Only with delightful turns of phrases, catchy lines, and other nuggets of linguistic joy spread through the spoken language.
Wow, hitmen must paint very loudly, for one to have actually heard them painting!
Seriously, that just goes to show that language is flexible. There are, of course, accpted conventions. However, slight alterations are not always detrimental to being understood. That doesn’t mean that there’s not usually a “correct” way to phrase things in a language. It just means that people with less of a clear grasp of the language than others can still effectively communicate.
Probably there are. I mentioned is comprised of elsewhere, which is especially reprehensible because that particular misuse seems to be driven solely by the desire to cram in more syllables.
While I normally don’t like to see words misused, as it tends to blur meanings, I’ve always defended the use of hopefully, meaning it is to be hoped that simply because no good alternative exists. Granted, there are ways to work around it, but they require a more complicated sentence, and usually more words.
For instance, you can say, “I hope that…”, but that changes the main part of the statement into a subordinate clause. “Hopefully…” simply sounds more straightforward.
I’ll defend this usage of “hopefully” to the last drop of my blood. Hopefully, none of you naysayers is headed over to my place with a battleaxe.
I realize you just wanted to use up that list, and were probably joking a bit, but lissener is correct. “Imply” would be right in this case. I believe all the rest is correct, except “lay down” (which has been discussed) and “feel badly” which should be “feel bad.” Google “predicate adjective” if you’re confused.
I understand. It’s like “I know” vs. “It is known.” The exact density of silver is known, but I personally don’t know it. It’s the same thing, just a bit less obvious in the hope/hopefully case.
Trying again here Daniel. How about responding to the rest of my post as well?
I apologize if you saw what I wrote as playing the race card. I was merely looking for an extreme example to counter your contention that words only mean what peolple directly engaged in the dialog say they mean. The point is that you cannot change the meaning of a word simply by declaring it so. A language that is understood by two people is pretty useless. There has to be **general agreement ** to what words mean for language to have any use at all, and for that to happen there has to be an appeal to tradition and authority. Note that I am not saying words never change, I am not saying authority is always right, and I am on record twice in this thread as saying the OP is off base. Yes words change and languages evolve over time, but ever since the first attempts to codify and structure language, **the point of which was to make it easier to understand, ** there have been those who tried to hold the line against misuse and pointless corruption. Those of us who do so today feel that we are in pretty good comany.
In America, we’ve traditionally been blind to the division between written and colloquial English. IOW, you’ve got to talk as a book is written, and if it’s in a book then you’re allowed to say it.
Hopefully is fine as colloquial speech. It is not OK as written English. Why?
Well, that brings us to the next missing thing, which one poster mentioned but which has not really diffused into the discussion here. Namely, that there are different levels of English usage. There are the non-educated vs. the educated and highly educated, and there are the elite and non-elite users.
The assumption has been in this thread among those who claim that actual use dictates correctness that there is only one body of users. But there are many. There are acceptable and unacceptable terms for use in a rap song, and there are similar divisions for those who write and edit The New Yorker.
My guess is that if you used the term “deff” in a rap song these days, you’d be severely laughed at, simply because the term is old and out of style. Likewise, if you tried to use the hopefully or comprised of in a New Yorker article, the editor would cross it out (or not accept the article in the first place), because those are vulgar colloquialisms.
Another thing: Users of language are not automotons who simply emit words, whose usage must then be deemed correct simply because they used it. Rather, they (especially in the case of the elite) apply their own explicit rules to usage. Hence, the elite doesn’t like “hopefully” because the use is new and perceived as ignorant. One is free to argue that their reasoning is incorrect and try to convince them to loosen up regarding this one word. But until one does so, they will continue to dictate usage within their own circle, and they will be right.
Sure, but keep in mind the distinction between written and spoken English. “Hopefully” is used so much by so many people that it’s bound to creep into the speech of even those who wish to avoid it. I would never use it in formal writing, but I use it regularly in speech.
Further, most Presidents are NOT members of the literary elite.
Nuh, obviously, uh. Else how do childhood friends who invent a secret language with one another communicate? If their secret language isn’t doing teh communication, then we must posit amazing psychic powers.
Granted, it’s not as broadly useful as a language which more than two people understand, but for language to have a use for communication, only the understanding of the audience and the speaker is required. (If language is to be used for pure expression, only the speaker’s understanding is required–I say this based on the most execrable student essays I read in college).
This part I can agree with, mostly–except that the appeal need be neither to tradition nor to authority, but rather to what folks understand currently. Since we are creatures that exist within time, what we understand today is influenced by what we understood yesterday–but yesterday’s language, when contradicted by today’s language, necessarily loses. Humans, being natural users of language, gravitate toward using the language that best serves their purposes; if the use of “hopefully” has changed, it is because folks believe that the altered meaning better communicates their thoughts.
I reject the differentiation between spoken and written English as overly simplistic. Although there are some phrases I wouldn’t use in a formal paper (I always tried, and always failed, to get my students to insert “Shiver me timbers” into their academic works), that’s not based on the written nature of the language, but on the specific type of written language. What you write on a greeting card, on a bathroom wall, on a messageboard, on a tattoo, bears little resemblance to what you write on a resume, on an academic paper, on a letter to your attorney, on a government form. The academic paper bears far more linguistic resemblance to a political speech than to a messageboard post.
As for elite language use, this is again simplistic. Academia demands a certain type of language use. But just this week I edited a short document written by a woman who is unquestionably a member of my town’s elite, and her language use was, from an academic perspective, atrocious. Missing commas and periods, misspelled words, sentences that went nowhere, and worse riddled the document. The fact that I knew this didn’t make me somehow more elite than her; on the contrary, she could buy everything I own, pay off all my debts, and quintuple my salary without putting a dent in her spending money. She’s got more political and private and social power than I’ll ever have.
Knowing how to use language in an academic setting is sort of like knowing how to tapdance. It’s kind of a cool skill, but it shows no especial superiority of character or intellect. Conversely, not knowing how to tapdance, or how to punctuate a sentence correctly, is not a symptom of stupidity.
But what if what folks “understand” is an appeal to authority? For such an appeal is certainly a part of how the vast majority of people regulate their own language. They look things up in the dictionary. And you can say to them, “But how you yourselves use language is more important than what is written in that book.” And yet the book informs how they use language. Catch-22.
In this instance, I think you are right. But certain other usages derive completely from ignorance, such as “livid” meaning bright from anger when really it means ashen from anger. And again, the vast majority of English speakers are only half-interested in their own language and really never try to communicate better or more precisely or whatever. They just say what they say.
This makes no sense. If you are saying that there are more subcategories and nuances to it, then I agree. If you are saying that because there are more nuances to it it is not worth making the distinction, then I heartily disagree.
Full agreement here. There is a style and norm for everything.
Naturally.
I meant members of the literary or academic elite, not political or business elite. I didn’t make this clear.
Then she would have no cred in academia, of course.
I think it’s a symptom of ignorance, certainly. For academics, language is an indispensible part of craft (esp. lit and humanities).
