I’ve heard this argument back and forth across the boards, and read most of the threads on it. I’m going to continue to use “hopefully”. I don’t see it as particularly jarring, and it serves a purpose, anyway. And I rather like the word.
It seems to be divided pretty evenly anyway, so it’s not as though I’m the lone holdout. 
Far from it–your usage is entirely correct and standard.
Daniel
I frequently see something like “Susan is needing help with her project,” rather than simply “Susan needs help with her project.” Perhaps the is+gerund form is a legitimate verb tense (I’m not an English major), but it seems unnecessarily complex.
It’s absolutely standard: it’s called the present progressive, I believe. It describes action which is in progress right now. The difference is subtle:
“Hon, when you get done watching that movie, Susan needs help with her project” suggests that maybe Susan isn’t working on it right now, but exists in a generalized state of needing that help.
“Hon, could you go work with Susan? She’s needing help with her project” implies that Susan is working on the project at this instant and is at a point where she needs help.
It’s a little more immediate.
Daniel
You mean between vice versa and carpe diem? I’m no historical linguist, but I’d guess the explanation is that phrases don’t move from language to language at the same time or in the same way.
Whaddaya know. First I’ve heard of it. I shouldn’t have written with such certainty.
At the risk of igniting a prescriptivist/descriptivist powder keg, that use of “hopefully” while widely common is grammatically incorrect.
In “Hopefully it will rain” the adverb hopefully has no choice but to latch on to the only verb “rain” It was likely not the speaker’s intention to describe the act of raining as hopeful, rather their own hopeful state.
“I look hopefully to the sky, wishing for rain” is a correct way to use “hopefully” in this context.
What, so everyone who says “Hopefully it will rain” is an ignorant boob? No, just using the word “hopefully” in a technically incorrect way.
Did you consider consulting a reference before making that point? Words and phrases do often have non-literal idiomatic meanings.
I stand corrected. Hopefully, everyone will forgive me.
It drives me up a wall when people use word combinations which contradict each other. I was in a class with someone who wrote a paper entitled, “Failed Assassinations.” You can’t have an assassination if it is failed.
Adding varying degrees to words which are not variable, such as when someone says, ‘It’s very unique’ or ‘somewhat exact’ – NO! Something is unique or it is not; something is exact or it is not.
When people use the term ‘over’ instead of ‘more than’, when talking/writing about numbers.
Using ‘that’ when ‘which’ is more appropriate.
Putting the punctuation outside of quotes, i.e. “This is the wrong way to do it”.
-And of course, starting sentences with ‘and.’
I try to avoid using “hopefully” based on what I read in “The Elements of Style” by Strunk and White.
Actually, that’s not a mistake, but rather a British way of doing things. It is also favoured in the programmer community for reasons of clarity:
edit mine
Is Susan a house elf?
Shades of Dobby from Harry Potter… 
Thread post count at 112, and I didn’t see my nemesis.
“Anyways” for “anyway” Ack!
I’m not sure why it twangs my nerves so much, but it does.
Also, “alright” for “All right”.
My coworker is very irritating, using “in particular” as an interjection. Sentences like “The other day, in particular, I had to work overtime” are asinine and completely distract you from the topic. I figured it was a speech thing, just to fill time while he thought up the rest of his sentence, but the man has started doing it in emails.
My head hurts now
It’s awful, isn’t it, when someone’s meaning is so badly obscured? I have no idea what the point of that paper could’ve possibly been.
Spirits on the River is a unique Asheville restaurant, inasmuch as it’s the only restaurant in Asheville to serve Native American cuisine. Flaming Cow Lips is a unique Asheville restaurant, inasmuch as it’s the only restaurant in the known cosmos where trained yodelling poodles serve exotic animal parts flambe to the customers. I feel comfortable calling Flaming Cow Lips the more unique restaurant of the two, and many descriptivists grammarians have got my back on this one.
Pray tell, what could possibly be wrong with this? What possible confusion could it engender in a delicate mind?
Given that they’re synonyms, with a relic differentiation of meaning which left the building a couple decades ago, I doubt anyone’s done this around you.
This rule is my personal biggest grammar gripe: it’s the stupidest, most obfucatory rule in American English punctuation, as far as I’m aware. Punctuation should serve meaning, not vice versa; and so punctuation should go inside the quotation mark only if it’s part of the quoted material. But I agree with you, it’s quite the vexing rule.
But, of course, that’s fine too!
My grammar rule? When in doubt, see if you can make sense of the speaker’s intention. If you can, consider whether the rule you believe has been violated really serves any purpose, or whether it’s simply obscuring your own enjoyment of language. I suspect you’ll find that many of the rules whose violation bother you so much are pointless rules, serving only to keep high-school English teachers in business, and not serving to widen the breadth and beauty of the spoken word.
Daniel
Actually I have always been under the impression that:
“alright” is correct when used this way:
Alright, I’ll tell you what’s bothering me.
“All right” is correct when used this way:
The answers you gave on your quiz were all right.
I seem to remember a brief vogue for “Yes way” back around 1977 or so. At least that was semi-cute. Now they’re all like…
Another thing that gets me steamed is when people are all like, “Bob makes twice the money as Bill,” when everybody knows it should be, “Bob makes twice the money than Bill.”
These have given me 40 minutes of solid laughs - good stuff everyone.
One of the most egregious (that I’m surprised was not referenced) is: EXpresso!! (and expecially)
I find it particularly funny when the barrista at a coffee shop is explaining in detail the process of roasting their fine eXpresso beans! Gets me every time.
Also, how about “Libary” instead of “library” !!
As long as we’re reviving this thread, I see no-one mentioned “pacific” for “specific”, as in “How long will it take to fix this pacific problem?”. Particularly irritating when it’s your boss’s boss saying it, which makes it injudicious to call them a mouth-breathing ignoramus. :smack:
(Re: The alleged rule that reflexive pronouns may only be used if the sentence already contains the related non-reflexive pronoun.)
The sentence “Look it up for yourself” may not really be the exception. It’s an imperative sentence, where (in English) the subject “You” is implied and not spoken.
I learned this in 8th grade English. Where is the subject in an imperative sentence like:
Answer: The subject is “You”, as in “You open the door” but in English imperative sentences, the subject is implied.
But now that Nature’s Call brings up this point, I suppose that’s sufficient to allow for the reflexive “yourself” there.
BTW, shouldn’t “ownselfs” have an apostrophe: “ownself’s” ?