> 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. Haven't yet found another online-dictionary (know of another one I can use? I actualy don't LIKE M-W...:) However, I happen to agree with you in regards to "hopefully", it does seem to have a weakened meaning, with no word to make up for the lack... > But it is still a *weakening* of the language. > > Because something is inevitable does not make it good. THAT, I agree with!! I'll also state that, just because "everybody's doing it", makes "it" neither right or good! > 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. Again, I'm agreed. I wasn't defending an argument, but pointing out a source (that I still think is wrong, as is also evidenced by my countless arguments with a friend of mine, who INSISTS that the dictionary is right, no matter what...:) Chris "Life is the nightmare that leaves its mark upon you in order to prove that it is, in fact, real." -Thomas Ligotti- 'The Sect of the Idiot'