Dragaera

OT: bois (was: Sethra Lavode vs. Enchantress of Dzur Mountain)

Mark A Mandel mam at theworld.com
Fri Aug 16 09:38:47 PDT 2002

On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Steven Brust wrote:

#Is it your position that because people objected to certain changes that
#later proved useful, all objections to changes are bound to prove
#useful?  I don't think that argument will hold up.
#
#I don't remember anyone stating that language either does not or ought not
#to change.  Is it your position that all changes to the language should be
#instantly approved of and used by everyone when they first enter?
#
#My position can be expressed as follows: Some changes to the language make
#it more flexible, powerful, and precise.  Other changes make the language
#more rigid, weak, and vague.  I support the former by employing the new
#usages as they occur, and oppose the latter by not using them, and by
#objecting to them when they happen to come up as a subjects of conversation.
#
#What is your position?

With regard to the innovation under discussion, the use of "hopefully"
as a sentence adverb, my position is that
 1. It is useful. It provides a convenient way of expressing something
that is difficult to express otherwise -- see my previous post quoting
the Usage Note from AHD4 and commenting on it.
 2. It does not interfere with previous usage. The sentence-adverbial
use of "hopefully" is usually syntactically distinct from the simple
adverbial use. Do you have any trouble telling which is which in these
sentences?
	1. Hopefully, the override will pass.
	2. "The override will pass," he said hopefully.
	3. Working hopefully, we will get the override passed.
 (Actually, #3 is pretty strange. "Working with hope" would imho be more
natural.) Can you come up with any sentences where one use could easily
be mistaken for the other? How hard did you have to try to develop those
examples? What rough proportion of the number of simple-adverb uses
could be easily mistaken for sentence-adverb uses, and vice versa?

In short, what's the cost-benefit ratio of the new construction? I think
it's strongly on the side of benefit.

I am going to have to drop out of this discussion soon because it's
absorbing me too much. Phooey.

-- Mark A. Mandel