Hopefully

Hopefully . . . Additionally . . . Regretfully . . . Honestly. . .

We use these words all the time in our speaking and writing, but grammarians rail against some of them and wince every time they hear them. What’s the story? Are they right? Have we been wrong all these years?

The answer is “Sometimes.” And sometimes not. 

Ms. Picky will parse the meanings of these words as they are used in sentences to illustrate their grammatically acceptable usage, but, in doing so, she raises as many questions as she gives answers. . . .

The Bad Dangling Adverbs

Let’s start with “hopefully,” since that is the “bad dangling adverb” used most frequently. “Hopefully” means “in a hopeful manner,” or “in a hopeful way.” If you remember that much, you’re halfway home. Here’s why:

Example 1:

Hopefully, the Yankees will win the pennant.

What the sentence means is “The Yankees will win the pennant in a hopeful way”—but this is not what the speaker intended it to mean at all. What he meant was “It is to be hoped that the Yankees will win the pennant,” or even “I hope the Yankees will win the pennant.” But he did not mean, “The Yankees will win the pennant in a hopeful manner.”

Example 2:

Additionally, their same-store sales were up 79 percent.

What the sentence actually means is that “Their same-store sales were up 79 percent in an additional way.” (Might one as easily say “multiplicationally”?) What the speaker intends the sentence to mean, of course, is “In addition, their same-store sales were up 79 percent.”

A few weeks ago, Ms. Picky discussed dangling modifiers. Adverbs like “hopefully” and “additionally” are a type of dangling modifier. Every word in a sentence should have a relationship to every other word in the sentence. The function of an adverb like hopefully is to modify a verb, to describe—in the case of the first example—how the Yankees will win the pennant. The speaker must reckon with the facts: If “hopefully” is the only adverb in the sentence, and “will win” is the only verb, then “hopefully” can only be modifying “will win.” But that’s where common sense kicks in, and, as listeners, we allow our brains to make the correction for us unconsciously, because we understand the speaker’s intent, even if he is not expressing it clearly. 


(Interestingly, “regretfully” offers speakers another option—“regrettably”—which is an adverb that doesn’t need excuses. Unfortunately, there is no “additionably” or “hopably.”)

How did we come to this state of affairs, that so many people can be so wrong so often? One reason might be that “It is to be hoped,” for example, takes longer to say or write than “hopefully.” Another reason might be what has been discussed here before: our increasing reluctance to take responsibility for our opinions. “Hopefully” doesn’t say who is hoping; it implies a general feeling of beneficence, but doesn’t commit as to who is being beneficent. 

The Good Dangling Adverbs

Nevertheless, although Ms. Picky is firmly in the camp of the anti-hopefullys, she cannot help but observe that no one (including herself) ever criticizes anyone for using similar constructions with such adverbs as “apparently,” “sadly,” or “fortunately.” Why is that?

Example 1:

Apparently, the location of the buried treasure had remained a secret.

If we apply the same logic to this sentence that we apply to “hopefully,” it must mean, “The location of the buried treasure had remained a secret in an apparent way.”

But that makes no sense at all, does it?

Example 2:

Sadly, she had not bought silver when it was twelve dollars an ounce.

This sentence should mean, “She had not bought silver in a sad way when it was twelve dollars an ounce.” But, somehow, this usage has become acceptable shorthand for “It is sad that she had not bought silver when it was twelve dollars an ounce.”

Example 3:

Honestly, that hedge fund manager is such a crook.

Would anyone think this speaker means, “That hedge fund manager is such a crook in an honest way”? Any listener would assume the speaker means to say, “I am telling you honestly that that hedge fund manager is such a crook.”

Now we will offer the linguists’ explanation for this contradiction, remembering that linguists are never to be confused with grammarians, since, to a linguist, there is no “correct” or “incorrect” grammar; “whatever is, is right”; and linguists are observers, not defenders, of the language.

The linguists’ explanation of the difference between the bad dangling adverbs and the good dangling adverbs is that the good ones are “disjuncts” [literally “not joined”]. A disjunct is like an ablative absolute (discussed in a previous post), in that it is not grammatically part of the sentence.


The grammarians’ explanation is pretty much the same as the linguists’, except that grammarians prefer using the term “parenthetical expression”—a word or words that might be put within a pair of parentheses or a pair of commas—to explain such usages.

So why do we distinguish between “good dangling adverbs” (disjuncts, or parenthetical expressions) and “bad dangling adverbs”? 


Ms. Picky has no idea. Language is the way human beings communicate, and human beings are messy, imprecise creatures who don’t always have a reason for what they do. That said, we still need to make the most prudent choices available to us if we want to communicate clearly. 

P.S.: Another Question for Logical Thinkers

One more thing: Let us, for a minute, go back to one of the “bad dangling adverb” examples above:

Additionally, their same-store sales were up 79 percent.

Suppose we accept that this usage of “additionally” is incorrect, and that, to be correct, one would have to revise the sentence to “In addition, their same-store sales were up 79 percent.” Have we now solved the problem? 

Not really—because, although “in addition” is now no longer a dangling adverb (and so perhaps does not hit us in the face in the same way “additionally” did), we have really only managed to convert the dangling adverb to a dangling adverbial phrase, but have still not found a word for it to modify. 

That said, this usage has become an acceptable“disjunct”;  it is considered a “parenthetical expression,” thus excusing it from playing an interactive role with any other word in the sentence.

Go figure.

This blog is now read in Brazil, Canada, China, Croatia, France, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, the U.K., the U.S., and Vietnam, but not in London, where everybody is too busy watching Kate and Will.