Hopefully we can all move past this

Subject: Re: AP’s approval of ‘hopefully’ symbolizes larger debate over language - The Washington Post (from 2012)

I hate to disappoint anyone tenaciously holding fast to the "correct" use of hopefully, but please don't look to me for support. I'm all for acceptance. Language changes. Anything wrong with, "Happily, the test was canceled"? or, "Fortunately, the rain stopped"? If hopefully seems wrong, it's because we've been taught that it's grammatically illogical. But we accept thousands of illogical words and phrases and call them idioms, don't we?

We cannot condemn a word because it has taken on a new function. Jonathan Swift abhorred contractions — don't, can't, won't — said they'd be the death of good English. Not long ago, teachers went into paroxysms over split infinitives and prepositions at the ends of sentences, both based on artificial rules. (The New York Times has asked reporters to avoid split infinitives, not because they're wrong but because "teachers write us.")

For hundreds of years, English and American authors have used the singular "their," but most teachers still correct its use regardless of how logical it is in a particular context. In "Pride and Prejudice," Jane Bennet says: "But to expose the former faults of any person, without knowing what their present feelings were, seemed unjustifiable." That's one of about 100 uses of the singular "their" in Austin's works. Shakespeare invented verbs, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs from other parts of speech and made up completely new words in every play. Who complains about that?

Basically, we don't like to find things different from the way we've known them, and we react against much that's new — music, fashion, art, architecture, language. But we usually get used to change, and it enriches and varies our lives.

Bob Greenman

Bob passed away in spring of 2018 and is constantly missed


From me (via the JEA listserv)

Friday late. Not really sleepy. Just received my fourth nasty email (evidently from some faithful FOX viewers) ripping me for allowing Dan Savage to speak in Seattle. No idea how to respond, other than DELETE. And then I see the latest entries in the "hopefully" strand...

It is dangerous to argue with Bob on matters of language, but I will continue to ask writers to use "I hope" as opposed to "hopefully." My reason to not bow gracefully to the guidance of the AP goes beyond correctness of expression and my distrust of adverbs generally.

I campaign against arguments beginning with "I believe," or "In my opinion," or "In my mind's eye" (I give Hamlet a pass here). Those are unnecessary phrases (after all, that's YOUR name on the essay, so there's no need to remind me that what you are about to say is not someone else's opinion), but they are also phrases which provide distance between the writer and the opinion. "Hey, this is just my opinion... Please don't blame me or attack me if you disagree. I did say 'In my opinion' after all, and there is no such thing as a false opinion. Right?"

Those meaningless preambles are intellectually wimpy.

To write a sentence such as "I hope the Rockies win the World Series because I put a $20 bet down on them at 50-1" makes everything clear. I stand to win a grand. Just me, and only in very specific circumstances.

"Hopefully the Rockies will win the World Series..." just confuses and generalizes (who is doing the hoping? the team? all of America? the guy who just wasted a twenty at Harrah's?) and provides the same sort of distance between writer and argument that the ubiquitous use of "I think" creates in so many persuasive essays.

I yearn to read (and write) more powerful arguments, full of voice and passion, not timid and muddled half-apologies.

I celebrate our constantly evolving language. But I worry about the ability of so many of our students to make clear, well-supported claims, with voices that demand readers pay attention.

If students can write with logic, grace and style, I will gladly accept their invented words, daring syntax and disdain for the "rules." But until then... those hind-bound rules can help them.

Provoking thought... our daily responsibility

My buddy Mark Newton passed on this link today, which is related to the Tucson shootings but focuses on one of the very bedrock principles of free expression. The writer's argument defending free speech, while challenging those who exercise free speech to stand by what they express, is an essential part of journalism education. We need to push our students to carefully consider their views before they publish, and then to stand strongly behind their considered views.

In class, we might discuss the difference between a rapidly constructed tweet and a reasoned blog entry. One is the equivalent of an off-the-cuff comment in the lunchroom, while the other is one of the treasured outcomes of true education. Which of those forms of expression are we more likely to stand behind when confronted with opposition? We need to share these sorts of opinion pieces with our students, not to pressure them to believe some point of view in particular, but to get them to value good writing and how it can be achieved. It is important, of course, to find balance in these examples, so you might add in this link to the discussion, which comments on the Tucson shootings and Sarah Palin but from a different direction.

The key question is always: "How did the writer use language to make her point?"

Happy 400th birthday!

The King James Bible was published in 1611, and if you are wondering why those of us charged with defending the English language should care, check out http://tinyurl.com/299p7jo from the Jan. 9 New York Times.

I can't tell you how many times I have said to students, whether journalists or AP Lang, "You must be familiar with Shakespeare and the Bible to fully understand Western literature. Perhaps a 400th birthday will be the motivator some need to spend some time with both -- and I don't think it's an accident that Shakespear and the King James Bible are contemporaries.