From: dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Redundant foreign phrase usage (was Re: coke brings back anc)
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:52:49 GMT
Organization: Pseudopolis Yard

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.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english