From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: Redundant foreign phrase usage (was Re: coke brings back anc)
Organization: University of Illinois
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:39:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.115249.10232@techbook.com> dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
>Path: news.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!olivea!charnel!psgrain!qiclab!techbook!dant
>From: dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque)
>Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>Subject: Re: Redundant foreign phrase usage (was Re: coke brings back anc)
>Message-ID: <1992Oct6.115249.10232@techbook.com>
>Date: 6 Oct 92 11:52:49 GMT
>References: <1992Oct2.023238.1297@techbook.com> <10923@spark.ed.ac.uk>
>Organization: Pseudopolis Yard
>Lines: 64
>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?  For the general definition, this
>is not a valid use of the definition.  However, in the particular
>dictionary that I quoted, they sometimes have synonymous definitions in
>small caps.  In the definition for hoi polloi, "masses" is a synonymous
>definition.  Thus "masses" is a legitimate substitute for hoi polloi.
>In case you're interested, the dictionary is Websters Ninth New
>Collegiate.
>
>By the way, I also just checked Wester's Third and they have a similar
>but expanded definition.  However, they also have a second definition
>"elite", which is a common mistake made by people who don't know what
>it means.  And of course, being Webster's Third, they do not indicate
>that this second definition is not really correct.  I suppose this is
>one of the reasons Web 3 was so thoroughly castigated by all the pop
>grammarians when it first came out.
>
>>
>><but that doesn't mean they must know that "hoi" is an 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.  
>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.
>
>>
>><Since it's a foreign phrase and they're not
>><required to know that foreign language to speak English,
>>
>>Sigh.  Why is it that some people never learn the distinction between
>>knowing a foreign language and being aware of a certain fact that has
>>something to do with that language?
>
>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.  However, he conceded that most people wouldn't
>recognize the accusative form (he gave it and it was significantly
>different) and so suggested that they might want to rephrase so that it
>would be a subject.
>
>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.  As far as
>I'm concerned, we really shouldn't borrow any.  Do any other languages
>borrow foreign grammar?
>
>---
>Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com
>
>(*) I saw the Economist (which I always think should be named the
>OEconomist) at my health club where it seemed rather out-of-place.
>Most of the magazines there have names like Flex and Steroid World.


It is instructive that the first use of hoi polloi in English, acc. to 
the American Heritage Dict. 3e, occurs in the work of James Fenimore
Cooper, who used the English article to preface it.  AHD notes that using
the English article is a mistake, and reminds us as well to avoid the
confusion of hoi polloi with elite.  Which probably means everyone uses
the article and has promoted the polloi (does this form ever occur?)
somewhat.

Dennis


debaron@uiuc.edu               (\                   217-333-2392
                               \'\             fax: 217-333-4321
Dennis Baron                    \'\           __________
Department of English           / '|         ()_________)
Univ. of Illinois               \ '/          \ ~~~~~~~~ \
608 S. Wright St.                 \             \ ~~~~~~   \
Urbana IL 61801                   ==).            \__________\
                                 (__)             ()__________)