tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post3880401227736442361..comments2024-02-19T07:51:46.118-05:00Comments on Throw Grammar from the Train: Nunberg on "hopefully"Janhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03173219179480606941noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-44865368683421010052012-06-01T22:58:50.535-04:002012-06-01T22:58:50.535-04:00The worst grammar atrocity today is how the stupid...The worst grammar atrocity today is how the stupid media insists on using commas to mean "and" in headlines.<br /><br />"Obama, Holder incompetent"<br /><br />Please for the love of God just say "and" or at least use a freaking ampersand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-1320903405180600862012-06-01T00:56:06.791-04:002012-06-01T00:56:06.791-04:00Seems to me that this floating "hopefully&quo...Seems to me that this floating "hopefully" is more of a sentiment than an adverb, an expression of optimism and reassurance. If I say, "Hopefully, we'll get this done.", it's not really a question of whether I hope or you hope, it's just that it's TO BE HOPED by... Whomever it may concern. <br /><br />This "hopefully" is of a completely different kind than the "hopefully" in a sentence like, "She stared hopefully at the ocean, waiting for his return." Here "hopefully" totally refers to manner in which she was staring. On the other hand, "Hopefully, we'll get this done." doesn't mean that we're going to get it done in a hopeful fashion. It just means that we're hoping to get it done.Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01607046468663026271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-81106787436882521782012-05-30T23:13:54.002-04:002012-05-30T23:13:54.002-04:00FigMince, the comparison you're querying is in...FigMince, the comparison you're querying is indeed Nunberg's. I too would have used "disapprove" verbs in both places; luckily the first number is 50 percent, so you can hardly misunderstand. (Also, he's writing for broadcast; it may be easier to hear than to read.)Janhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03173219179480606941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-31775198576451627022012-05-30T22:52:58.924-04:002012-05-30T22:52:58.924-04:00I like FigMince's rule about how to determine ...I like FigMince's rule about how to determine the logical subject of an adverb which modifies a verb, and that is (if I understand him): it's the same as the logical subject of the verb. And when <i>hopefully</i> does modify the verb, which is when it is a manner adverb, the theory works. In <i>Joyce approached the oracle hopefully</i> the one who has hope is the same as the one who approaches.<br /><br />But as is often the case in English, when an adverb comes somewhere before the verb it modifies some larger constituent than the verb and is interpreted differently. In <i>Hopefully, Joyce approached the oracle</i>, <i>hopefully</i> no longer modifies the verb, no longer expresses a manner, and has a different logical subject. It's all different. Nunberg calls this <i>hopefully</i> a "floating sentence adverb", which I suppose means that he thinks it modifies a sentence. The interpretation suggests that it modifies the sentence <i>Joyce approached the oracle</i>. The logical subject of this preverbal <i>hopefully</i> could be "I", the speaker, or perhaps "we", to include the hearer, but clearly it's not Joyce who is hopeful.Gregory Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293280236115306205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-24321197810476890372012-05-30T21:56:33.867-04:002012-05-30T21:56:33.867-04:00Hopefully all our problems will be this small.Hopefully all our problems will be this small.Marc Leavittnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-62735742892348875112012-05-30T21:46:45.246-04:002012-05-30T21:46:45.246-04:00Ø, this is out of sequence because I'd posted ...Ø, this is out of sequence because I'd posted the above response before noticing your response, but thank you for the 'juxtapose' note. I'm humbled and embarrassed to discover that I've been using it incorrectly for a squillion years.<br /><br />Hopefully I won't do it again. Oops, hopefully I'll endeavour not to do it again.Allan Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11841668091720591745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-21873031826323059372012-05-30T21:37:05.249-04:002012-05-30T21:37:05.249-04:00And another thing:
I can't be sure, Jan, whet...And another thing:<br /><br />I can't be sure, Jan, whether an errant indent has caused the following to be attributed to Nunberg, or they're your words:<br /><br />'In 1969, only about half the panelists agreed with it; by 1999 it was unacceptable to 80 percent of them.'<br /><br />Whoever said it, I suggest that it would be better expressed as 'In 1969, only about half the panelists DISagreed with it; by 1999 it was unacceptable to 80 percent of them.'<br /><br />It would have been less confusing to this reader if like had equated with like.Allan Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11841668091720591745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-89010518410018126762012-05-30T21:30:42.465-04:002012-05-30T21:30:42.465-04:00FigMince,
If Ken said "I'm Ken, and hop...FigMince, <br /><br />If Ken said "I'm Ken, and hopefully ..." to me then I would have no doubt of his meaning. If he changed the word order so that it no longer sounded like a familiar pattern of usage, then I might interpret his meaning differently, or I might have some doubt. Word order does matter in English. <br /><br />The experts tell us that what you and I learned in school about adverbs as words whose job is to qualify verbs is far from adequate for analyzing many English sentences (and not just sentences that set off some people's peeves).<br /><br />And I hate to tell you this, but that's not what "juxtapose" means.Øhttp://voidplay.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-14890095401468999932012-05-30T20:55:09.921-04:002012-05-30T20:55:09.921-04:00Ø, I’m not sure I agree that ‘it’s clear’ that Ken...Ø, I’m not sure I agree that ‘it’s clear’ that Ken is doing the hoping. Colloquially, the words could mean that, but surely in grammatical terms ‘hopefully’ is the adverb qualifying the verb ‘believe’ which has ‘you’ as its subject.<br /><br />If we juxtapose the words to read '...you hopefully believe...', the waitees become the hopers (doomed as they may be to the disappointment inevitable in any restaurant where waiters tell patrons their first names).<br /><br />And to further demonstrate the potential confusability of this 'hopefully' word, what if we juxtapose the opening three words to read 'Hopefully, I'm Ken...'.Allan Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11841668091720591745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-14697477600872673202012-05-30T20:21:39.106-04:002012-05-30T20:21:39.106-04:00Bryan, it's more a joke than an argument, and ...Bryan, it's more a joke than an argument, and yes it might have been more effective without the "for". There was and is a word "waitperson". Nunberg didn't make it up. He didn't maintain that it's what people usually say; he just indicated that he finds it a horrible usage.<br /><br />Gregory, how about if you decide what matters to you?<br /><br />FigMince, it's clear that Ken is doing the hoping.Øhttp://voidplay.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-30134959321255216482012-05-30T19:24:40.335-04:002012-05-30T19:24:40.335-04:00"I'm Ken, and hopefully you believe that ..."I'm Ken, and hopefully you believe that I won't irretrievably screw up your horrendously expensive dining experience tonight."<br /><br />So is Ken doing the hoping, or his waitees?Allan Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11841668091720591745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-40435991687770743012012-05-30T18:26:29.947-04:002012-05-30T18:26:29.947-04:00Mostly I hear "... and I'll be taking car...Mostly I hear "... and I'll be taking care of you tonight."<br /><br />But waitperson? While I've heard it - and waitstaff - I never heard anyone refer to themselves as that.The Ridger, FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01538111197270563075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-55379540889496298062012-05-30T16:50:56.060-04:002012-05-30T16:50:56.060-04:00Ignore the usage fetishes that don’t really matter...<i>Ignore the usage fetishes that don’t really matter.</i><br /><br />Are you going to tell us about the fetishes that do really matter?Gregory Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293280236115306205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-19996012940914929782012-05-30T16:48:17.115-04:002012-05-30T16:48:17.115-04:00"I'm Ken and I'll be your waitperson ..."I'm Ken and I'll be your waitperson for tonight."<br /><br />I've never had someone tell me this. They usually say, "I'll be your server tonight." At some point they use to say, "waiter" or "waitress" There may have even been a brief flirtation with "waitperson" that I missed (although it's clear that rest of the world decided that it was mistake and moved on.) However, I have never heard anyone include that awkward "for" in that sentence.<br /><br />They talk about strawman arguments. Is there such a thing as a "straw sentence"?Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01607046468663026271noreply@blogger.com