Is it "more" correct to say "Luckily for me" or "Lucky for me"? I found a few sites that discussed this (including m-w.com, under the rubric "hopefully") but I'm still not sure if one is specifically right or wrong, or both are acceptable. (Or one is right, while the other is acceptable using colloquial language.)
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
Both are correct. Lucky for me is simply shortened, which is grammatically fine.
Lucky for me is an elliptic form of It was lucky for me. E.g:
Luckily for me is a complete adverbial phrase, and not truncated:
Lucky for me seems to be about as popular as luckily for me, according to Ngrams:
Luckily, as it's an adverb. Compare it to 'happily'. You wouldn't say:
protected by tchrist Mar 1 '15 at 18:43
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?