At 12:52 PM 8/15/2002 -0700, Chris Olson - SunPS wrote: > > >Sure it could. There is clearly a linguistic niche for a gerundive > > >meaning "it is to be hoped". > > > > Why? That is, what does "it is to be hoped" mean? It is to be hoped by > > *whom*? By persons unknown? Why say that? By you? Then say, "I > > hope." By me? Then say, "You should hope." By all right-thinking > > people? Then say that. Why this insistence on vagueness? > >Here's what the online Merriam-Websters has to say: Ummm...I hope you understand that, in Steve-world, to quote a Webster's dictionary is functionally equivalent to leaving the word undefined. However, that isn't the point. I've already conceded that this is a lot battle. The word has changed. It now means what you quoted. I was using it as an example of a change that weakened the language, and I have yet to see anything like a reasonable counter-argument. Here is the usage note from the American Heritage dictionary 1981-- "Hopefully, as used to mean it is to be hoped or let us hope, is still not accepted by a substantial number of authorities on grammar and usage. The following example...is acceptable to only 44 per cent of the Usage Panel." I imagine that, by now, even American Heritage finds it acceptable. But it is still a *weakening* of the language. Because something is inevitable does not make it good. > 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. Interestingly means, "this interests me and ought to interest you." There is no ambiguity. Same with frankly, luckily, and clearly. The problem with hopefully is its ambiguity.