From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Redundant foreign phrase usage (was Re: coke brings back anc)
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:32:06 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Oct6.115249.10232@techbook.com> dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
>iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
>><Yes, they should know that it means "the general populace; masses" (to
>><quote Webster's definition)
>>
>>Fine.  If Webster says that "hoi polloi" means `the general populace',
>>it follows that "the hoi polloi" means `the the general populace'.  Right?
>
>Surely you aren't suggesting that the dictionary definition can be
>substituted for the word it defines?

No, it can't.  I admit defeat on this point.  (I may have had
something else in mind, but I can't remember what.)

>In case you're interested, the dictionary is Websters Ninth New Collegiate.

And I consulted the _OED_ and it says something to the effect that in
English the phrase is usually used with an article, although in Greek
it means `the many', with _hoi_ being the article.

>>It doesn't matter whether "hoi" or "polloi" or anything else is an article.
>>It only matters that "hoi polloi" is a definite noun phrase.
>
>Here is the crux of our disagreement -- I contend that "hoi polloi"
>functions as a simple noun in English, you claim it's a noun phrase.  

The fact is that there are speakers who use it without an English
article, and I can explain that by assuming that it is a noun phrase
in their lexicons.  There also are speakers who do use an English
article with it, so in their lexicons it must be a simple noun.

I recognise it either way.  I don't use it myself.

>My argument is that the word "hoi" is not an article in English and thus
>this isn't a phrase or at least not an English one.

Of course it is not an English phrase.  It doesn't sound English to
begin with, and I would expect it to be italicised.

>Interestingly, I saw a letter to the editor in the Economist(*) just
>today about hoi polloi.  It seems that they had used it as an direct
>object and the letter writer was complaining about it.  It seems that
>hoi polloi is in the nominative case and that they should have used the
>accusative case for it.

No, they shouldn't.  English grammar wants direct objects to be in the
English oblique case, not in the Greek accusative case.  And only eight
pronouns have a separate form for the oblique case.

>The point of the above, is that there seems to be no limit to how much
>foreign grammar that some people want to borrow into English.

Yes, there is, to wit: _Forms_ may be borrowed only if they reflect
_categories_ that exist in English.  English borrows plural forms of
nouns, because English distinguishes between singular and plural number.
But English must not borrow forms for different cases, because that is
a category alien to English grammar.

>Do any other languages borrow foreign grammar?

Yes.  Persian and Urdu are full of Arabic grammar.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK