Let's say there would be a sentence like this:

I obviously still don't speak Danish and therefore I am having a hard time living here.

Is it correct if you consider that, in the past, I had a chat with a person I am writing to, in which I have explained to him that I am not planning to learn Danish because I will be leaving soon?

In that case, I think, the word obviously would be interpreted to mean something similar to as expected.

If such usage of obviously isn't right, should it rather be as expected? Please tell me if it is not correct at all, or if you just wouldn't use it, or if there is nothing wrong with using it.

closed as unclear what you're asking by FumbleFingers, Chenmunka, Tushar Raj, Ellie Kesselman, Centaurus May 30 '15 at 20:56

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    'I obviously still don't speak Danish' is related to a past state, but is, more relevantly, speaking about a present state. The 'obviously' must be referring to some piece of evidence making the present lack of fluency in Danish obvious. – Edwin Ashworth May 29 '15 at 22:35
  • Why say "obviously"? It possibly comes across as arrogant; or, it seems to imply just the opposite: "it's not that obvious if I have to tell you it is"; or, it's used where the speaker/writer is just too lazy to explain something. – A.Ellett May 29 '15 at 23:35
  • When I was 14, I broke into a factory even though it was obviously marked No Trespassing – Jim May 30 '15 at 4:54
  • 1
    If you use 'obviously', you imply what @EdwinAshworth said, and it doesn't sound polite. I'm still not clear on what you want to imply – Tushar Raj May 30 '15 at 5:43
  • @Jim That's obviously a different usage (adverb as compared with OP's pragmatic marker). And you should have pleaded the fifth. – Edwin Ashworth May 30 '15 at 8:51

How is it obvious to the recipient that you have not changed your mind and learned Danish contrary to your previous statement?

Did the other person also expect you would not learn Danish while being surrounded by it?

I would simply omit the presumptions of what should be obvious to or expected by your recipient.

While not part of your question, I would also suggest using consequently in place of therefore. Compare: 1) I failed at learning Danish and therefore am having a hard time living here. 2) I still don't speak Danish and consequently am having a hard time living here.

Therefore usually precedes something that happened because of something else that happened (i.e. a result). Consequently usually precedes something that happens because of a particular action or set of conditions (i.e. a consequence... obviously). Not learning Danish is an omission not an act (i.e. something that happened) - Your lack of Danish language ability was an existing condition; the hard time you have is a consequence of that condition. Trying to learn the language but failing would on the other hand be something that happened.

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