disappearing prepositions

[Arnold M. Zwicky]

On Sep 28, 2004, at 7:47 AM, sagehen wrote:

> arnold writes:
>
>> my speculation is that once people heard a few instances of this use
>> of
> "hopefully" they said, in effect: now *that's* just what i want!"  and
> so it spread.  almost as good as sliced bread.
>
> its only defect was that it was new.<
> ~~~~~~~~~
> Can't agree that  "its *only* defect"...... Its use can be fully as
> misleading in some cases as may/might confusion.  E.g., relaying news
> of
> someone else, as in "He's off  hopefully getting sthg or other at the
> hardware store."  Is it *his* hope of success or is it *mine* that he
> won't
> be sidetracked into the Sidetrack?

this is the classic objection to speaker-oriented subject adverbial
"hopefully": that it introduces potential ambiguities.

but the fact is that virtually *every* innovation in language that
doesn't involve brand-new lexical items introduces an ambiguity:
metonymic extensions, metaphoric extensions, reanalyses of all sorts,
they all do it.

in fact, potential ambiguity is everywhere.  most strings of words
admit of multiple interpretations, usually huge numbers of them.
ambiguity isn't really a defect; it's a fact of life, as common as air
or dirt.

remarkably, even pernicious ambiguities (of which those with
"hopefully" are not of that number) persist.  "hot" meaning 'high in
temperature' or (the metaphoric) 'spicy' continue to be troublesome,
and only circumlocution can solve the problem.  similarly, "right"
'correct' vs. "right" 'to the right side of the body'  and innumerable
others.

in contrast to these, in context "hopefully" is almost always uniquely
interpretable.  there's no problem.

i don't think you'd want to live with the consequences of the position
that expressions must be rejected if they could lead to ambiguity.
silence, utter silence.

to say it again, in slightly different terms: "hopefully" is castigated
because it leads to ambiguity only because it's innovative.

arnold