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.)
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:
[It was] lucky for me [that] I saw the sniper before he saw me.
Luckily for me is a complete adverbial phrase, and not truncated:
Luckily for me, I saw the sniper before he saw me.
Lucky for me seems to have become more popular than Luckily for me since about 1980, according to Ngrams:
Luckily, as it's an adverb. Compare it to 'happily'. You wouldn't say:
Happy for me, I met my long-lost brother the other day.
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 (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?