English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Google gives me support from 19,200 on "is done fully automatically" and 35,200 on "is done fully automatic".

share|improve this question
How are you asking Google? "Fully automatic" is a perfectly good adjectival phrase, so Google will get hits for it. However as @Dancrumb points out, you are asking about an adverbial phrase. – user1579 Apr 4 '11 at 13:13
Click the links in my question to see how I "asked Google". – David Apr 4 '11 at 13:16
Google "support" is virtually meaningless, especially when two competeing phrases are stripped of their context. – Robusto Apr 4 '11 at 13:19
then you have an excellent example of why a Google search is not a reliable tool for correctness. Someone is wrong on the Internet. – user1579 Apr 4 '11 at 13:27

Since you're modifying a verb (the verb to do), then you should use the adverb automatically, not automatic.

What your research shows is that correct is not always the same as usual.

share|improve this answer
The easy way to notice this is to remove "fully" from the sentence: "It is done automatically." – MrHen Apr 4 '11 at 15:57
Strongly disagreed! Any coherent sense of correctness in language must be based sooner or later on usage. If the google hit counts were accurate — if “done fully automatic” really were twice as common — then this would emphatically show that at least in casual usage, the standard rules about adjectives/adverbs now admit an exception. Happily, as Cerberus shows, this isn’t the case: the explanation is just that the numbers are several orders of magnitude off. – PLL Apr 4 '11 at 16:47

Note that Google's numbers of hits are usually NOT AT ALL reliable. They have become pretty much meaningless over the years, except to establish whether a phrase is used at all, and to find pages with context to study the use of the phrase.

If I go to page 10 of the results for your first link, the number changes from 19k to 48k. If I do the same for your second link, the number of hits changes from 35k to 84 [sic]. Fully automatic doesn't even have ten pages of results. This would indicate that fully automatically was used five thousand times more often; however, Google's result numbers being as unreliable as they are, I'd not use them to support anything at all. It is better to look for well-written pages using one phrase or the other.

That said, Damcrumb is absolutely right: automatic is not an adverb, and the phrase needs to be adverbial, which makes fully automatically the right choice.

share|improve this answer
+100, if I could. Google hit counts need to be taken with a very, very large pinch of salt. Google n-grams, which works from a smaller but gives much more meaningful numbers, shows no occurrences at all of done fully automatic, and plenty of done fully automatically. – PLL Apr 4 '11 at 16:37
@PLL: Agreed, Ngrams is more reliable. And even that shows some weird peaks and hiatuses, especially before 1900; I suppose we should take anything with a fair grain of salt if we don't either understand its methods or have tested its results to be accurate empirically. – Cerberus Apr 4 '11 at 16:54
yes — as I understand it, the issues are that the sample size in earlier decades gets rather small, and that a non-negligible proportion of the earlier material is mis-dated. And the biggest issue of all is that unlike with other academic corpuses, the full data is not accessible, so it’s impossible to independently quantify these weaknesses and calibrate against them. But it seems to be accepted by experts (well, at least by the language bloggers I read) as moderately reliable; and it has a larger data corpus and a much more convenient interface than the academic corpuses :-) – PLL Apr 4 '11 at 17:00
@PLL: Right, that is about what I'd expect. I consider Ngrams to be quite useful too, and reliable enough for most purposes. One other issue that might be making it a bit less reliable in some cases is that of typography: it is possible that we sometimes don't get the results we want because Ngrams misses huge chunks of text that were entered with different punctuation or spacing. Consider some of the odd things I found with regard to contractions: english.stackexchange.com/questions/8900/… — The final graph is a bit puzzling. – Cerberus Apr 4 '11 at 17:33

It is done fully automatically.

Although it sounds awkward, it should be fully automatically, as fully acts as a sub-modifier to the adverb automatically. If you want to use the adjective automatic, then say:

It is fully automatic.

However, I would suggest the more idiomatic construction, fully automated:

It is fully automated.

And, of course, you can replace it in all these examples with the specific action you are trying to describe.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.