JKSCHW at aol.com wrote:
> Frankly, we should get over these Mr Language Man worries about ilk and its ilk, and hopefully eventually we will. --jks
>
> In a message dated Fri, 1 Sep 2000 1:11:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Eric Beck <rayrena at accesshub.net> writes:
>
> << Joanna Sheldon wrote:
>
> >(I still stiffen at the wrong (i.e., post-WWII,
> >derived-from-German) use of "hopefully" but that, too, is a lost cause.)
The usage is not post-ww2. The OED cites a 1932 instance in the New York Times. The definition it gives is "2. It is hoped (that); let us hope. (Cf. G. hoffentlich it is to be hoped) orig. U.S. (Avoided by many writers)." Note that the OED says "cf. German." It is an analogy, not a statement as to origin. Clearly any germanic language (e.g., English is one) is capable of this formation without benefit of copying from another Germanic langauge. "We" never will get over these language games as long as we have class divisions within a social order which, in principle, is egalitarian. It is necessary under such conditions to invent a more or less unending series of artificial distinctions. They belong to the same category as worries over which fork to use or whether one should or should not have color-coordinated socks and tie. Emily Post thought a proper gentlemand did not appear on the streets of New York coatless, and was even a bit doubtful of whether that new-fangled thing the "sports jacket" was proper.
Probably everyone has his/her little list of usages which jar, but the polite person keeps the list to him/herself and does not inflict it on others. It is specially important for educators (and above all English teachers) to observe this rule of etiquette. Phobias cannot be avoided, but we should as far as possible not infect others with our own phobias.
Carrol