Actually, Webster's Collegiate #11 (which most mainstream U.S. publishers use)...
Which explains a lot of what is wrong with mainstream US publishers.
...allows "hopefully" for "it is to be hoped" now, and dismisses the opposition to it as the same sort of excessive rigidity that gave us "the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put."
No, it is not. Using "hopefully" (or "thankfully") in that way is muddy and imprecise -- who is hopeful? -- and easy to avoid. It is a different case altogether than rules about word order.
Webster's Collegiate, however, thinks we should hyphenate "unself-conscious," which is just SILLY.
Which is just one of many, many reasons why the more thoughtful users of English I know tend to dislike Webster's Collegiate.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zvi and
no subject
Date: 2009-01-11 09:16 pm (UTC)Which explains a lot of what is wrong with mainstream US publishers.
...allows "hopefully" for "it is to be hoped" now, and dismisses the opposition to it as the same sort of excessive rigidity that gave us "the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put."
No, it is not. Using "hopefully" (or "thankfully") in that way is muddy and imprecise -- who is hopeful? -- and easy to avoid. It is a different case altogether than rules about word order.
Webster's Collegiate, however, thinks we should hyphenate "unself-conscious," which is just SILLY.
Which is just one of many, many reasons why the more thoughtful users of English I know tend to dislike Webster's Collegiate.