Conference thebay::joyoflex

Likewise:  We will be landing momentarily.

Momentarily means "for" a moment, not "in" a moment.

Yet again, though, the dictionary folk have bowed to the ignorance of the
masses.

"Literally" -- People seem to use it when they mean just the opposite.  A year 
or so ago I heard a newscaster on a Boston radio station say:

"...they stole several pounds of cocaine from literally under the noses of the 
State Police."

This may explain a few things about law enforcement in the Commonwealth.

Len.

I saw some graffiti in a bathroom stall, just above the paper dispenser,
that I thought I'd share with everyone:

                               DIPLOMA'S

                               take one

and I bet the author took one, as it's obvious that he never had recieved
one before.

Dave

No doubt "recieved" is a typo.  Right Dave??   [Please excuse the probable
punctuation errors.]

- dave

"i" before "e" except after "c"
or when sounding like "a" as in "neighbor" and "weigh"

but remember, "weird" is weird.

Ack.  Yes, it was a typo.  I'm so embarassed.

"embarassed" was a typo, right? How about "embarrassed."

Scott

The most common improper usage has got to be

	IT'S

meaning

	ITS

Re 11.5:

Maybe it's too much "caffeine" that makes things "weird."

And how about 'stein' for all of you beer drinkers?

- chuck

Something has been bugging me for a long time. When do you (does one)

add an LY to an adverb? The opening phrase in "Knights In White Satin"

by the Moody Blues is Breathe Deep... It's a great song but this has

always bothered me. Shouldn't it be, Breathe deeply? Maybe I,m all

wet. Is there a hard and fast rule for the usage of LY?

(writing in this note makes me paranoid)

M.E.

When turning an adjective into an adverb, *always* add "-ly" (I'm sure
there are some exceptions, but I can't think of any right now). In the
example you gave, it *should* be "Breathe deeply...", not "Breathe deep...",
but I think that many people find it acceptable to leave the "-ly" off
to make verse scan, especially if the verse is song lyrics. Songwriters
do nasty things sometimes in the name of scansion.

--- jerry

Whenever it's supposed to be an ADVERB, you should add "-ly".  
However, there are many situations where an adjective is correct -- 
where some noun exists which the adjective can modify.  For example, 
"He drew the line thick" is correct, and different from "He drew the 
line thickly".  Even in the example, "Breathe deep", you could stretch 
a point and say that the noun "breath" is understood.

Incidentally, there are many irregular adverbs without "-ly": "hard", 
for example, as in "hit hard".  (Hardly "hardly".  (Apologies.))  

Gabriel.

Or "live free or die."

We also learned an addendum. 

              Neither leisure seize their weird foreign heights.

Jack Wickwire

I can forgive Graeme Edge of the Moody Blues for 'Breathe deep the gathering
gloom'.  'Deeply' doesn't scan as well.  Poets have a license to be
ungrammatical.

--PSW

How about a "shoe-in item"?  At the same time that I was reading that
this morning, I heard someone in the background refer to a "waitressing
position."
    
Eileen
                 

Re: .9

Members of a different species, perhaps?

BU

    Hopefully means "with hope" not "I hope."
    
    "Hopefully we will get out of here by five o'clock." means that
    we'll leave with hope at 5 not I hope we'll leave at 5.
    

    Re .19:
    
    "Hopefully" can mean either "with hope" or "I hope".  When I say
    "Hopefully we will get out of here by five o'clock.", I do NOT mean we
    are going to have hope when we leave at five; I mean that right now I
    hope we leave at five.  You will find more on this in topic 179.
    
    
    				-- edp

    "Hopefully" does NOT mean "I hope".  It is commonly used to mean
    "I hope", but that is incorrect usage.  "Hopefully" means "in a
    hopeful manner" and that is all it means.  The speaker should say
    "I hope that ..." or "It is hoped that..." 
    
    Common usage is not necessarily proper usage.
    
    Bernie  

      Re .21
      
>    ... The speaker should say ... "It is hoped that..." 
      
      I hope that no one begins a sentence with "It is hoped that..."
      Who is doing the hoping?
      
      Sadly, I cannot remember where the dissertation on sentence
      adverbs is.  Likely, someone else will probably find it
      and post a reference thereto here.
      
      Dave C.      
~\~

    re .21:
    
    See note 179 for a discussion of "hopefully" and sentence adverbs.
    
    	Jon

    Re .21:
    
    > "Hopefully" does NOT mean "I hope".  It is commonly used to mean
    > "I hope", but that is incorrect usage.
    
    "Hopefully" DOES mean "I hope".  That's the way people use it, so
    that's what it means.  By definition, common usage is correct.  And
    this meaning of "hopefully" and the use of sentence adverbs have been
    correct for hundreds of years.  Only the particular combination of
    using "hopefully" as a sentence adverb is relatively new, but it is
    still within the bounds of correct English usage.
    
    Webster's gives one definition of "hopefully" as "it is hoped".  It
    does not say this is incorrect or informal in any way.  It even gives
    an example:  "Hopefully better coordinated and more effective programs
    may result -- N. M. Pusey". 
    
    I referred to topic 179 in my response.  Did you bother to read that
    topic before responding?
    
    
    Re .22:
    
    > I hope that no one begins a sentence with "It is hoped that..."
    > Who is doing the hoping?
    
    I see nothing wrong with that.  It rains quite often.
    
    > Sadly, I cannot remember where the dissertation on sentence adverbs
    > is.  Likely, someone else will probably find it and post a reference
    > thereto here. 
    
    I DID THAT ALREADY!
    
    
    				-- edp

    The American Heritage Dictionary:
    
    <Hopefully ...
    
    <Usage: Hopefully, as used to mean "it is hoped" or "let us hope," is
    <still not accepted by a substantial number of authorities on grammar
    <and usage. The following example of hopefully in this sense is
    <acceptable to only 44 per cent of the Usage Panel:
    
    <"Hopefully, we shall complete our work in June."
                                                                      
    The fact that some people do something does not make it correct
    or acceptable. But all things considered, for scratch monkey (I
    can't spell Postpischil) to be included with a 44 per cent minority 
    is better than usual.
     
    I hope this clarifies some things. I am hopeful it will be a help.
    I hopefully await developments.
    
    -bs

    Re .25:
    
    Have you read 179 yet?
    
    
    				-- edp

    re .25:
    
    You really should read Ms. van Leunenen's article. She's a better
    authority than some of the self-appointed experts that the dictionaries
    use. She's under the opinion that some of these experts are
    "bully-boys." You may disagree, but her opinion is fascinating. 
    
    While we're on the subject of bully-boys, I don't like your treatment
    of edp. While he may be brash, his opinions are considered.
    Name-calling should be avoided. I am hopefully awaiting a polite
    discussion of this topic.
    
    	Jon

    Yes - that doesn't mean I'm n agreement with it.
    
    -bs

    Re .28:                                    
    
    Well, if you've read it, then how about providing some more interesting
    commentary than "American Heritage doesn't say so".  We've got
    Webster's, van Leunenen's article, hundreds of years of history, and
    common usage.  Would you also like information from the OED?  American
    Heritage just doesn't stand up to all that.
    
    
    				-- edp 

    .27 has objected to my treatment of edp. He is right, and I appologize
    to Eric (aka edp). It was thoughtless of me. 
    
    One problem I have with Notes is that it is so easy to respond 
    immediately that the words get past the fingers before they have
    been processed enough by the brain. [I know - I'm sure opening myself
    up for comments with that remark.]
                                 
    That still does not mean I AGREE with edp! The mere fact that a
    lots of people are using words incorrectly does not make it correct. 
    The usage may eventually be accepted - that is the history of the
    English language. "Hopefully" does not have "hundreds of years of
    history, although seems to be on its way to becoming accepted in
    speech. But is has a long way to go before it is accepted in 
    formal written English.
    
    -bs 
    

    Re .24:  What is your justification for asserting that "by definition,
    common usage is correct"?

    "E i^ I, so I i^ n back" (^ = glottal stop) is fairly common in
    my home city of Bristol, but not considered correct English.

    Or would you say that dialect is not English anyway?

    Closer to (your) home, "How are you?" - "Good".  Is "good" correct
    usage?

    Jeff. 

    Re .30:
    
    > "Hopefully" does not have "hundreds of years of history, although
    > seems to be on its way to becoming accepted in speech. 
    
    179 says it does.  Why do you say it doesn't?
        
    
    				-- edp

    Re .31:
    
    > Re .24:  What is your justification for asserting that "by definition,
    > common usage is correct"?
    
    See notes 22.14, 41.3, 80.18, 2.33, 41.0, 81.0, and 164.15.
    
    Where else could the rules come from?  There isn't any governing body.
    I certainly haven't voted for any representatives.  Even if we give to
    scholars the power to find what the rules are and inform us of them,
    where else could they find the rules but from English users? 
    
    "Common usage" is not the same as "common in my home city of Bristol".
    If something is in common usage, it is a part of English in general.
    If something is in common usage in a particular place, it is a part
    of the dialect of that place.
    
    
    Re "hopefully":
    
    See notes 4.12, 6.11, and 84.0.  Note 4.12 indicates the OED accepts
    "hopefully".
    
                                      
    				-- edp

    The response to my .21 is more lively than I would have
    believed possible.  I hope passions aren't running too high.  At
    the risk of starting another controversy,  I would like to suggest
    that citing the dictionary on matters of proper usage is a risky business.
    A dictionary is a history book; it records how the language is in
    fact used, and tells us little about how it ought to be used.  To
    determine proper usage, consult a usage guide.  Two that I use most
    are Fowler's "Modern English Usage" published by Oxford and Bernstein's
    "The Careful Writer, A Modern Guide to English Usage" published
    by Atheneum.
    
    The statement in .31:
    
    >"Hopefully" DOES mean "I hope". That's the way people use it so
    >that's what it means.  By definition common usage is correct.
    
    is wrong.  Since people commonly make every grammatical usage error
    possible, the quoted statement would imply that every error is correct!
    That's a contradiction.
    
    The point is that we cannot depend on people who are ignorant of
    proper usage to determine proper usage simply by uttering sentences.
    
    As to "hopefully" (those whose patience are already over-taxed by
    this subject need not read further), I'll quote Bernstein, after
    which I will put on my helmet and crawl into my bunker.
    
    	HOPEFULLY
    	   A common misuse of this word is illustrated in the following
    	sentences: "The sixteen astronauts are negotiating a $3,000,000
    	contract to sell to a publishing company their personal stories
    	- including, hopefully, the account of a visit to the moon";
    	"Hopefully, two-thirds of this cost would be covered by Federal
    	grants."  This solecistic use probably arises from a false analogy.
    	You can use adverbs like 'fortunately' or 'luckily' in this
    	way.  They mean "in a fortunate or lucky manner," and the kind
    	of construction cited would be equivalent to "it is fortunate
    	that..."  But 'hopefully' as used here does not mean "in a
    	hopeful manner," nor is it equivalent to "it is a hopeful thing
    	that."  The intended meaning is "it is hoped that" or "if hopes
    	are realized," and these phrases should be used.  The Germans
    	have a word that covers the intended meaning - 'hoffentlich'.
    	And in English we can take care of a somewhat similar situation
    	with 'regrettably' (in a manner that calls for regret) as
    	contrasted with 'regretfully' (in a manner full of regret).
    	But regrettably 'hopefully' is not equal to the burden sometimes
    	placed upon it.  What is needed is a word like 'hopably', which
    	is not here being nominated for the job.

    Two corrections to the previous reply (.34):
    
      I was quoting from note .24, not from .31.
    
      After that quote, the sentence should read:
    
    	"...every grammatical AND usage error..."
    
    
    Bernie

Re .34:
    
    > Since people commonly make every grammatical usage error possible,
    > the quoted statement would imply that every error is correct! That's a
    > contradiction. 
    
    There are two senses in which something can be an error.  The first is
    that something may be an error in the sense that typographical errors
    are agreed to be errors in spelling and are not what the author
    intended.  If the slip were brought to the attention of the speaker,
    they would probably be receptive to the idea that they intended
    something else.  In this sense, errors do not become part of the
    language any more than a court would enforce a typographical error in a
    bill.
    
    In the sense that an error is a violation of rules, even though the
    speaker intended to say precisely what they did, the above criticism is
    incorrect.  The reason it is incorrect is it makes an unwarranted
    presumption:  There is some standard by which one can say errors are
    made in common usage.  I.e., it is assuming its own conclusion.  We
    cannot say errors occur until after we decide upon the standard.
      
    Bernstein's argument also fails.  The reason for this failure is
    that Bernstein sets up a straw man:  He says "hopefully" arises
    from a false analogy, an analogy to "fortunately" and "luckily".
    Then he goes on to show this analogy fails.  He is, of course,
    correct; "hopefully" cannot be used in analogy to "fortunately"
    or "luckily".  But it CAN be used in analogy to "presumably",
    "regrettably", "happily", and "mercifully".
    
    
    Re .25:
    
    > The American Heritage Dictionary: . . . .
    
    You did not mention which version of the American Heritage Dictionary
    the information came from.  Because mine was purchased only last
    year, I am going to assume it (Second College Edition, 1982) is
    more recent and the editors have changed their minds, because it
    has this usage note under "hopefully":
    
         The use of _hopefully_ to mean "it is to be hoped," as in
         _hopefully we'll get there before dark_, is grammatically
         justified by analogy to the simlar uses of _happily_ and
         _mercifully_.  However, this usage is by now such a bugbear
         to traditionalists that it is best avoided on grounds of
         civility, if not logic.
         
    In other words, they recommend not using "hopefully" not because it is
    wrong, but because some people are grumpy about it!  I trust that most
    readers of this file are aware of my preference between civility and
    logic.  :-)
    
    
    				-- edp 
            

    I take issue with the last sentence of the oft-quoted statement:

    >"Hopefully" DOES mean "I hope". That's the way people use it so
    >that's what it means.  By definition common usage is correct.  
                                                                    
    Without referring to "hopefully" per se, people commonly make certain
    blatant grammatical errors that are not nearly so "useful" as   
    "hopefully" (which, while barbaric, does indeed fill a niche which
    is not filled by any other word).  I allude to the common       
    hyperurbanizations --  "Between you and I" -- and other abuses of
    case, such as "It's me!".  The confusion of subject and object
    in the selection of pronoun is wrong whether or not 95% of speakers
    (almost everyone but William F. Buckley, I suppose, in the latter
    exampele) make the mistake or not.

    There are other similar errors which are indeed common usage, but
    simply cannot be justified by need.  "Hopefully" is a tough case,
    because it is technically incorrect but not easily replaced, as
    in the correct "Between you and me" or "It is I".

    Re .37:
    
    Had you read .36 when you wrote .37?
    
    
    				-- edp

    re .36
    
    In English, subject and verb should agree in number.  That is a
    basic rule of English grammar.  Therefore, the sentence
    "A box of crayons are lying on the table" is incorrect; it violates
    the rule.  According to the locgic of .36, the sentence is correct
    English because some speakers of English sometimes utter sentences
    like that.  Carrying the logic further, one could argue that one
    could never utter a sentence that is incorrect because usage entails
    correctness.  You must be using an entirely different meaning of
    the word "correct" than I have ever encountered.  I prefer to avoid
    absurdity and I shall continue to regard sentences like "We is doing
    good" as incorrect.  
    
    Bernie

    re .36
    The response to Bernstein's analysis is curious.  He is neither
    making an argument nor setting up straw men.  He is trying to teach
    us.  He simply offered an explanation why he believes "hopefully"
    has come to be used this way.  Your last statement simply contradicts
    him; it does not demonstrate he is wrong.
    
    Bernie

    re:.34+
    
    It depends on the dictionary. Some lean toward common usage,
    others toward proper usage.
    
    I sit somewhere in the middle (as is usual --- it's tough somtimes
    to see both sides :-)) of this argument. The purpose of language
    is to communicate. Your school says that to facilitate communica-
    tion, certain rules need to be established and adhered to. edp's
    school says that the more common usuage should be the proper
    usage, since more people communicate that way.
    
    Whether you like it or not, "hopefully", as meaning "it is to be
    hoped" has historical support, as well as popular support. Thus,
    there is no reason not to use it in that manner except to offend
    the aesthetics of a small class of individuals.
    
    On the other hand, I sympathize with your position. I have my
    bugaboos as well, an example being the use of "lay" as an intrans-
    itive verb.
    
    --- jerry

    A box of crayons {are} on the table
    
                  vs.
    
    {Hopefully}, it will stop raining every weekend.
    
    
    English is not my strong point, being an engineer :-), but there
    seems to me to be a fundamental difference between these two "errors".
    The first is a grammatical error, the second a semantic error.
    grammer is the structure of the language, whereas semantics is just
    the meaning of a word. The rules of grammer are pretty well
    established. However, words are being invented all the time, new
    meanings given to them. The rules that say hopefully doesnot mean
    "it is hoped that" are not the rules of grammer but of semantics.
    
    What I'm saying is, if you're going to dispute the rules, use the
    same set. 
    
    I believe that edp is saying that the way a word is used is what
    it means. That does not imply that it is okay to to make common
    grammatical errors. (Although not ending a sentence with a preposition
    is one of the rules of grammer that I would like to see
    eliminated.) Which brings up the point that the rules of grammer
    should not be "set in stone" either. English is a living, growing
    language. Some rules are basic, like "...box...is on the table"
    and probably will not change, while more obscure and confusing rules
    ,like preposition placement, should probably wither away and die.
    
    let's do lunch,
    
    sm
    ;-)

    re .42:
    
    let me correct a few things:
    
    1) "grammer" should be spelled "grammAr"
    
    2) I think I really should have been using the the word "syntax"
    	instead of "grammar". Grammar is the study of the rules
    	of syntax.
    
    3) instead of "few" above. I should have used "couple of"
    
    4) (3) above is wrong, now.
    
    Self-reference anyone?
    
    sm

    re:.42
    
    I believe that the rule against ending sentences with propositions
    has pretty much been eliminated. Not by fiat, certainly, but I
    don't believe that it's being "enforced" anymore. It was a pretty
    stupid rule, considering that it was okay to end clauses within
    a sentence with prepositions.
    
    --- jerry

    Re .39: 

    > In English, subject and verb should agree in number.  That is a
    > basic rule of English grammar.

    Where did that rule come from? 

    > Therefore, the sentence "A box of crayons are lying on the table" is
    > incorrect; it violates the rule.  According to the locgic of .36, the
    > sentence is correct English because some speakers of English sometimes
    > utter sentences like that. 

    That's certainly not what I intended to say in .36.  In fact, I thought
    I said in .36 that such errors were NOT part of English.  Would you
    kindly explain to me how and where .36 says that sentence is correct so
    that I can amend my words so that they indicate what I really wanted to
    say? 

    > Carrying the logic further, one could argue that one could never
    > utter a sentence that is incorrect because usage entails correctness. 

    Usage does not entail common usage, so it does not entail correctness,
    does it? 


    Re .40: 

    > The response to Bernstein's analysis is curious.  He is neither
    > making an argument nor setting up straw men.  He is trying to teach
    > us.  He simply offered an explanation why he believes "hopefully"
    > has come to be used this way. 

    American Heritage gives one definition of "argument" as "A course of
    reasoning aimed at demonstrating the truth or falsehood of something.".
    I submit that Bernstein's explanations of the false analogy are a
    course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating the truth or falsehood of
    something (using "hopefully" in a particular way is incorrect). 

    > Your last statement simply contradicts him; it does not demonstrate
    > he is wrong. 

    My last statement does not contradict Bernstein; he says nothing about
    any analogy between "hopefully" and "presumably", "regrettably",
    "happily", or "mercifully" -- I can't contradict him on something he
    hasn't said anything about. 

    Let me again try to explain what the straw man Bernstein sets up is.
    He says it is probable that some people have used "hopefully" in
    analogy to "fortunately" or "luckily".  For example, you can say
    "Luckily, he remembered to buy milk.".  Now this is correct, because
    "luckily" is modifying "remembered", and it is true that the
    remembering was lucky.  However, if you say "Hopefully, he will
    remember to buy milk.", we do not mean that the remembering will be
    hopeful -- the subject is not going to be full of hope while he
    remembers.  This demonstrates that "hopefully" cannot be used in
    analogy to "luckily".  On this point, I agree with Bernstein. 

    In other words, Bernstein has set up an argument showing, quite
    correctly, that "hopefully" cannot be used in analogy to "luckily".  I
    am calling this a straw man because I do NOT say that it is correct to
    use "hopefully" in analogy to "luckily", and neither do (or should)
    other people.  There is ANOTHER reason for using "hopefully" to mean
    "it is hoped".  That is, we have a good reason for using "hopefully" to
    mean "it is hoped", but Bernstein has not discussed that reason.  He
    set up a DIFFERENT reason and proved the DIFFERENT reason to be wrong.
    That is precisely what a straw man is, the setting up of a different
    line of reasoning to be torn down.  The straw man is attacked by
    attacking that different line of reasoning, leaving an argument that
    appears to show "hopefully" cannot be used to mean "it is hoped".  But
    the argument really fails, because it does not address the REAL reasons
    "hopefully" can be used to mean "it is hoped". 

    Let us now examine the correct reasons.  Consider the sentence
    "Happily, he remembered to buy milk.".  Here, we do not mean the
    subject was happy when he bought milk and we do not mean the
    remembering was happy; we mean the remembering is a happy thing; we are
    happy that the remembering occurred; it is a happy thing the
    remembering occurred.  Now, by analogy with "happily" and NOT
    "luckily", we can say "Hopefully, he will remember to buy milk.".  Here
    we have a valid analogy with "happily":  We hope the remembering will
    occur; it is hoped the remembering will occur.  This analogy IS
    correct, and it does not contradict Bernstein because Bernstein does
    not say anything about it. 

    By the way, are you related to Fred Goldstein or do you just share a
    name? 


				-- edp
         

    Re .45
    
    I was not responding to your .36; I was responding to your .24,
    trying to show the logical consequences of your statement, viz:
    
    	> "Hopefully" DOES mean "I hope".  That's the way people use
    	> it, so that's what it means.  By definition, common usage
    	> is correct.
    
    Along with the writers, of .25, .31, and .37, I find the statement
    untenable and I believe that my analysis is correct.
    
    
    As to your quetion regrarding the origins of grammatical rules,
    I think that interesting subject deserves a discussion of its own,
    rather than enlarging this one.  Anyone care to start it?
    
    Bernie
    
    

    Re .42
    
    You make a good point.  We should distiguish between grammatical
    and sematical errors and you are right, the "hopefully" error is
    more a matter of meaning than grammar.  Thank's for pointing that
    out.  I did not need to restrict myself to a grammatical example,
    though; one could make the same point with an error involving meaning,
    like a malapropism.
    
    Bernie

    Re: .45  (the Bernstein affair)
    
    My goodness, the world must be a tough place.  Poor old Bernstein!
    He writes a usage guide hoping against hope that he teach us poor
    lingquistic heathens something about our language, and he gets
    accused of setting up straw men and offering false arguments.  He
    must feel as Socrates did when he was accused of corrupting the
    youth of Athens.  Again, he is offering his view, not an argument.
    As to your discussion following your dictionary definition, I think
    you have made a basic logical error.  Here's what you argue:
    
    	An "argument" is "a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating
    	the truth or falsehood of something."
    
    	Bernstein offers a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating
    	the truth or falsehood of something.
    
    	Therefore, Bernstein offers an argument.
    
    That is an invalid form.  An analogous argument would be:
    
    	A cow has four legs.
    
    	Daisy has four legs.
    
    	Therefore, Daisy is a cow.
    
    The point is that when one attempts to inform us, he needn't offer formal
    argument; his purpose is pedagogic.  If Bernstein, or any of us,
    would have to make formal arguments whenever we offer advice or
    information or explanation, we would all die from boredom.
    
    
    Bernie
    [No relation to Fred Goldstein]
    
    	

    Re .36: 

    > I was not responding to your .36; I was responding to your .24,

    Oh, sorry, the "Re .36" at the top of your response .39 must have
    thrown me for a loop.  And I don't know what I was thinking when I saw
    "According to the logic of .36" in the same response. 

    > trying to show the logical consequences of your statement, viz:
    > 
    > 	> "Hopefully" DOES mean "I hope".  That's the way people use
    > 	> it, so that's what it means.  By definition, common usage
    > 	> is correct.                                    
    > 
    > Along with the writers, of .25, .31, and .37, I find the statement
    > untenable and I believe that my analysis is correct.

    Well, would you please read .36 now? 
    
    > As to your quetion regrarding the origins of grammatical rules,
    > I think that interesting subject deserves a discussion of its own,
    > rather than enlarging this one.  Anyone care to start it?

    Done. 


    Re .48: 

    > Again, he is offering his view, not an argument.
    
    Okay, his _view_ is wrong, and the _reasons_ he gives for his view are
    wrong, and the _reasons_ he gives for why others think "hopefully" can
    be used the way it can are wrong. 

    > As to your discussion following your dictionary definition, I think
    > you have made a basic logical error.  Here's what you argue:
    > 
    >	An "argument" is "a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating
    >	the truth or falsehood of something."
    >
    >	Bernstein offers a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating
    >	the truth or falsehood of something.
    >
    >	Therefore, Bernstein offers an argument.
    >
    > That is an invalid form.  An analogous argument would be:
    >
    > 	A cow has four legs.
    > 
    >	Daisy has four legs.
    >
    >	Therefore, Daisy is a cow.

    Your argument is NOT analagous.  The proper argument is quite simple:
    Bernstein offers a certain thing.  The word "argument" describes that
    thing; it is a valid name for that thing.  Therefore, Bernstein offers
    an argument.  Or you could say Daisy has four legs and hooves,
    masticates, and has certain other biological features (which uniquely
    identify cows).  The word "cow" describes such things.  Therefore,
    Daisy is a cow. 

    In any case, I don't know why you are bothering to play with words.
    You are only obscuring the issue.  Bernstein offers reasons to support
    his statements; his reasons are wrong.  Use any words you like; I don't
    care. I've shown why his reasons are wrong, and I've given good reasons
    why I say that.  Use anything you want to describe what he said.  Let's
    call it "frtn".  Bernstein's frtn is wrong, and I've shown why. 
    

				-- edp
                                                                   

Re:  .49



Now, now; don't get touchy.  I was REFERRING to .36 but RESPONDING to

.24.  I felt I had to do that because you stated your case in .36 but

the quote did not appear there - it first appeared in .24.  Anyway, it

made good sense to me when I did it but I realize how unusual such an

indirect reference is and I am sorry that it caused confusion.





It seems to me that my analysis [in .48] of your argument [in .45]

follows your format exactly, whereas your analysis [in .49] bends your

own statements into contortions and even adds words you did not speak

in order to make things come out right.  By offering such a contrived

analysis, you only strengthen the case against your own reasoning.





As to Bernstein, who must by now be a poor wreck of a man, if you

agree to say that his view (rather than his argument) is wrong, then

all you are saying is that you disagree with him; you are saying he is

wrong; you are contradicting him.  That is your right, of course, but

it is not at all the same as saying his reasoning is wrong.  That is

the point I have been trying to make since the Pleistocene Era.





And, finally...

I am sure you will want to respond to this note; I will let you (or

anyone else) have the last word on the subject, gentleman that I am.

I don't think any further discussion by me will be fruitful and I am

concerned that our dialog has passed the point where it is even

slightly interesting to the readers of this file.  I have to admit

that it has become boring and tiresome for me.



You have failed thus far in your comments to convince me of any of

your points, as I am sure I have similarly failed to convince you.

You hold as tightly to your beliefs, in spite of my razor-sharp logic

and elegant examples, as I do to mine in the face your responses.

There is simply nothing more for us to say; we run a serious risk of

repetition and boredom.  I believe it is a sign of good taste to know

when to end a discussion, as it is a sign of maturity in art to know

when a work is finished.  Let's agree to disagree and move on to poke

at the linguistic world on other, fresher subjects.  So take your best

shot - you may have the last word.





Bernie

    Re .50: 

    > I was REFERRING to .36 but RESPONDING to .24.  I felt I had to do
    > that because you stated your case in .36 but the quote did not appear
    > there - it first appeared in .24. 

    I still don't understand what .36 had to do with .39.  How did it fit
    in? 

    > It seems to me that my analysis [in .48] of your argument [in .45]
    > follows your format exactly, whereas your analysis [in .49] bends your
    > own statements into contortions and even adds words you did not speak
    > in order to make things come out right. 

    You take advantage of the multiple meanings of words in English to
    offer an "analysis" in which the WORDS have the same format, but the
    meaning is radically different.  Such manipulations are trite and
    unimportant, and I have withdrawn my use of "argument" and asked you to
    respond to the REASONS I gave why Bernstein was incorrect.  Not only
    have you ignored the reasons I presented, you deny their existence. 

    > That is your right, of course, but it is not at all the same as
    > saying his reasoning is wrong.  That is the point I have been trying to
    > make since the Pleistocene Era. 

    I DO say Bernstein's reasoning is wrong.  Watch me.  Bernstein's
    reasoning is wrong.  There, see?  But I do more!  Watch again.  It
    appears Bernstein's reasoning is as follows:  "Hopefully" is used by
    some people in analogy to "happily"; this analogy is wrong; therefore,
    "hopefully" cannot be used in the disputed manner.  (Is that not
    Bernstein's reasoning?)  Now I say this reasoning is wrong.  (There, I
    said Bernstein's reasoning was wrong, again.)  What is wrong is that
    "hopefully" is NOT used in analogy to "happily".  (There, I said WHAT
    is wrong with Bernstein's reasoning.) 

    At one point, Bernstein decries the use of "hopefully" because it isn't
    used to mean "in a hopeful manner" or "it is a hopeful thing that"
    which is the way "happily" is used.  But we can see that one would not
    use "presumably" to mean "in a presumably manner" or "it is a
    presumably thing that", so there ARE permissible ways to use sentence
    adverbs (like "presumably") other than the way "happily" is used.
    (There, I have shown WHY Bernstein's reasoning is wrong.  How can you
    deny that I haven't shown reasons?  You deny what is in front of your
    face.) 

    > You hold as tightly to your beliefs, in spite of my razor-sharp logic
    > and elegant examples, as I do to mine in the face your responses. 

    Well, let's look at a summary of the topic.  Maybe when we're done you
    can tell me where the razor-sharp logic and elegant examples appear.
    Response and paragraph numbers might help me find them. 

    The following table summarizes each response which had something to say
    about the disputed usage of "hopefully" or the assertation that common
    usage dictates correctness.  When no reason or evidence is presented,
    the response is indicated as an opinion (only).  When reason or
    evidence is presented, the opinion is obvious and so not always
    mentioned explicitly in the table.  There are basically two subjects,
    the "hopefully" usage and the common usage dispute.  When not otherwise
    indicated, a reason or evidence relates to "hopefully".  Why not scan
    the list and look to see who has presented what reasons and evidence? 
    
    (If the reader finds the table too long to read, skip to the bottom for
    the final summary.) 
    
	.19	MIANO	opinion against "hopefully"
	.20	edp	opinion for "hopefully", reference to 179
	.21	Bernie	opinion against "hopefully" and against common
			usage
	.23	Jon	reference to 179
	.24	edp	history for, Webster's for
	.25	bs	American Heritage against, opinion against
			common usage
	.28	bs	opinion against 179 (no reasons supplied)
	.29	edp	history for (from 179), common usage for "hopefully"
	.30	bs	opinion against usgae (no reasons), disagrees
			that "hopefully" has history behind it (no reasons
			for disagreement)
	.31	Jeff	question, Bristol example against common usage
	.32	edp	query .30's disagreement
	.33	edp	reference to 22.14, 41.3, 80.18, 2.33, 41.0,
			81.0, and 164.15 for common usage; ask "Where
			else could the rules come from?"; explain
			Bristol is not common; refer to 4.12, 6.11, and
			84.0 for "hopefully", including OED mention
	.34	Bernie	presents Bernstein's analogy, says errors are
			common so common usage isn't correct
	.36	edp	clarifies meaning of "common usage" to exclude
			errors, explain why Bernstein's analogy is false,
			present correct analogy, American Heritage for
			"hopefully"
	.37	Bernie	repeats assertion that errors are common so common
			usage isn't correct, provides example (no evidence
			that .36 has been addressed)
	.39	Bernie	repeats assertion that errors are common so common
			usage isn't correct, provides example (no evidence
			that .36 has been addressed)
	.40	Bernie	says edp contradicted Bernstein but didn't
			demonstrate Bernstein is wrong
	.41	jerry	dictionary comment, small summary, historical
			claim for "hopefully", popular claim for, states
			there is no reason against
	.42	sm	discriminates syntactic and semantic errors
	.45	edp	ask "Where did that rule come from?"; point out
			clarification of "common usage" in .36 has been
			ignored; get drawn into irrelevant discussion
			of meaning of "argument"; explain in detail
			Bernstein's analogy, why it is wrong, and what
			a correct analogy is
	.46	Bernie	opinion against common usage (no reasons provided)
	.48	Bernie	oppose use of "argument", totally ignores second,
			third, and fourth paragraphs from end of .45 where
    			Bernstein's analysis is discussed
	.49	edp	point out clarification of "common usage" in .36
			has been ignored, get drawn into irrelevant
			discussion of meaning of "argument", explain that
			discussion is irrelevant, request attention to
			reasons provided why Bernstein is wrong
	227.0	edp	Dwight Bolinger's essay for common usage

    To put the cap on things, here is a summary of the reasons and evidence
    which have been presented for and against "hopefully" and common usage.
    Feel free to point out reasons and evidence I may have missed. 
           
    
                                 common usage

	for					against

	Where else do rules come from?		Bristol example
	Bristol is not common			grammatical errors are common
	clarification of "common usage"
	22.14, 41.3, 80.18, 2.33, 41.0, 81.0, 164.15
	Bolinger's essay


                                 "hopefully"

	for					against

	Webster's				American Heritage
	van Leunenen (179)			Bernstein's analogy
	history
	OED
	correct analogy with other words
	newer American Heritage
	popular support

    In particular, three important things need to be addressed by those
    making a case for the "against" sides:  My clarification of the meaning
    of "common usage" needs to be addressed, the question "Where did the
    rules come from?" needs to be addressed, and my presentation of an
    analogy which does permit "hopefully" to be used needs to be addressed.
    I don't recall seeing any attempts at all to address any of these
    things. 


				-- edp

    The following are irksome:
    
    "Alot" for "a lot."
    
    "Candelabra" when the speaker means "candelabrum."
    

    I know people who say "an alumni" when referring to a person.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re: .52
    
    Decorative chandeliers have MANY hanging candelabrum and hence
    are correctly called "Candelabra."
    
    	Rick Merrill
    

    re .54  "MANY hanging candelabrums"
    				     -
    
    		:-)

Chandeliers???  I thought you were talking about MENORAHS !

Le Chaim . . .

/Eric

    Recently, I was visiting with three of my sisters.  I noticed that
    one of my sisters had her business card heat-sealed in plastic so
    she could use it as a luggage tag.  When I asked her how she got
    her business card "lamented," she said (after she picked herself
    up off the floor from laughing) "I hired mourners."
    
    Just one of those days!
    
    					red

    I don't know why, but that reminds me of an ancient Ogden Nash
    limerick:
    
    	There was a young man named Terence
    	Who simonized both of his parents.
    	The initial expense, he exclained,
    	Was immense,
    	But I'll save it on wearence and tearence!
    
    Bernie

    A lot of people lack confidence in singular nouns that represent
    a collection of things.  Instead of saying "that sort of thing",
    they will hedge their bets with "those sorts of things", or if they
    are particularly confused, will say something like "those sort of
    things."

    To add to the confusion, the form `that sort of things' is so common
    that I begin to suspect that it's accepted in some parts of the
    world.
    
    But doesn't this discussion belong elsewhere, or in a separate note?
    
    b

    > To add to the confusion, the form `that sort of things' is so common
    > that I begin to suspect that it's accepted in some parts of the
    > world.

    But it's perfectly correct isn't it?  Also, I hardly think it's
    a common usage.
    
    Jeff.

    Maybe we need an adjudicator. I'd say `...frogs and toads and that
    sort of thing' - that is `the sort of thing that has the attributes
    of a frog or a toad'.
    
    Common? I rarely see a DIGITAL manual in which it isn't frequent
    in its related form `n types of [thing]_s_'. 

    	As moderator, I refuse to adjudicate. Do we need volunteer
    adjudicators, or just sufficient toads and frogs to make a plural?

    .60 complained about "that sort of things" not "that sort of thing"

    How 'bout "Frogs and toads and things of that sort"?
    
    -dave

    Try using an analogy, construct a sentence which has "...and that
    sort of x", where x is something other than "thing"; whilst in no
    way "proof", because analogy is often a false friend, it can help
    in your doubt, confusion and thats sorts of emotions.
    
    Phillip

    re .44.  Jerry, I rather like the following poem:
    
    I lately lost a preposition
    It hid, I thought, beneath my chair,
    So, angrily I cried "Perdition!
    Up from out of in under there!"
    
    Correctness is my vade mecum
    And straggling phrases I abhor
    But still I wonder, what should he come
    Up from out of in under for?
    
    		Forgive me if I misqote it.
    		Can any one tell me who wrote it?		Nigel.

    RE: the "hopefully"/"wishfully" argument
    
    I'm surprised that noone commented on this one.  I found it rather
    amusing...
     
    glen
    
    
Note 81.0   METEOR::CALLAS
    
    �I am a hopeless optimist. 
    
    

    Thank you, Glen. It's been nigh four-and-a-half years, and *finally*
    someone got the joke.
    
    	Jon

    Hopelessly we can recall the old argument without it getting out
    of hand.
    Re: .49
    
    > In any case, I don't know why you are bothering to play with words.

    !!!!!
    
    But that's the whole purpose of this conference!
    
    (Sorry.)

	Announcement over the PA system at work:

	"There is a problem with the telephones ...blah blah..."

	Later that day:

	"The problem with the telephones has now been restored......"

	Well, we all knew what he *meant* to say!

    Re .71:
    
    Maybe not.  Maybe someone solved the problem, and someone else didn't
    like the lack of having a problem, so ....

    
    
    Idioms used by people who are not native speakers can  be quite
    amusing. I recently heard a German friend try to say:
    
       "That goes without saying"
    
    but unfortunately came out with:
    
       "That walks without talking"
    

re: .73

>       "That goes without saying"
    
>    but unfortunately came out with:
    
>       "That walks without talking"

Of course that could have been intentional -- a variant of "He can't walk and 
chew gum at the same time."

Clay    

    If it walks without talking, it's obviously not one of my kids!
    
    --bonnie