At 08:18 PM 8/15/2002 -0400, Mark A Mandel wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Steven Brust wrote:
>
>#At 07:25 PM 8/15/2002 +0100, Mike Scott 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?
>
>Let us ban the word "obviously". Why? Obvious to whom? To persons
>unknown? Why say that? To you? Then say, "It's obvious to me." To me?
>Then say, "It should be obvious to you." By all right-thinking people?
>Then say that. Why this insistence on vagueness?
"Obviously" means "it is obvious to me." Whence comes the vagueness? A
lovely word--very useful and elegant. Obviously, you haven't thought this
through.
>
>#In fact, "hopefully" in its vague use developed from the German word that
>#sounds like it but that I can't possibly spell--something like
>#huffentlich. I asked my father (German lit. professor) what that word
>#meant, and he said, with no hesitation, "I hope."
>
>You asked your father to translate a German word ("hoeffentlich", or
>replace the "oe" with an o-umlaut) into English. English has no precise
>translation for it
Exactly. Because the German word it has been taken from means something
different.
And (for the nth time) I am not suggesting a ban on the word. I have
already conceded that this battle is lost. But are you claiming this
change is useful? That it helps the language? That it permits us to make
nice distinctions? Or do you have a different standard for what changes
are useful? Or, as I asked in another post, do you consider the fact that
a change has occurred sufficient proof that it is a boon to the language?
>Another point. You, Steve, or someone else in this thread, have spoken
>of the potential confusion between this use of "hopefully" and its more
>traditional use to refer to the emotional state in which a person does
>something.
I have never spoken of that confusion. I could probably, with a great deal
of work, create a situation in which they might be confused, but it would
be a pretty ugly sentence.
>Summary: The sentence-adverbial use of "hopefully" is not confusing,
>does not supplant the emotional sense, and provides a short, convenient
>way of saying something useful.
What useful thing does it say that, "I hope" does not?
(And, yes, I agree, this *is* fun!)