4 of 4
4
élites
Posted: 20 April 2017 08:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  718
Joined  2013-10-14
Dave Wilton - 17 April 2017 02:48 PM

Not the first time, which is the time that counts. There wasn’t even an indication that you were quoting someone else. You represented the statement as your own words.

I missed this comment because it wasn’t highlighted in bold text when it was first posted. I don’t understand why that happens.

I am very interested in understanding your assertion. I said:” The phrase comes from Greek where it means the masses and in English, when properly used, means the same thing.”

This is considered common knowledge and a factual statement. I was not intentionally using AHD words; I was just submitting a fact to which I had previous knowledge. What part of that sentence should I have cited or quoted?

Regardless, one does not need to cite a source for material considered common knowledge.  Generally, any factual information contained in numerous reference works can usually be considered to be in the public domain.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 April 2017 10:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2007-06-14

Common knowledge?  Let’s have a quick look.

The AHD lexicographers seem to disagree to some extent with the usage panel.

Here is what the lexicographers say:

hoi pol•loi (hoi′ pə-loi)

n.
The common people; the masses.
________________________________________
[Greek, the many : hoi, nominative pl. of ho, the; see so- in the Appendix of Indo-European roots + polloi, nominative pl. of polus, many; see pelə-1 in the Appendix of Indo-European roots.]

Note that they tell us that it means “the many” in the original Greek.  Their first English definition is the common people, followed by the masses.

Given that variation of meanings among the professional staff and the usage board, I wouldn’t go so far as to call the statement of Greek-English equivalence “common knowledge”.

Random House Unabridged offers this:

plural noun
1.
the common people; the masses

Collins English Dictionary gives a British English view that similarly disagrees with AHD’s usage panel:

1.
(often derogatory) the masses; common people
Word Origin
Greek, literally: the many

American Heritage, in another publication, adds yet another meaning:

The masses, the ordinary folk; the phrase is often used in a derogatory way to refer to a popular preference or incorrect opinion:  From Greek, meaning“ the many.”
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy

Oxford Dictionaries online agrees:

Origin
Mid 17th century: Greek, literally ‘the many’.

Cambridge has a different definition entirely:

UK /ˌhɔɪ pəˈlɔɪ/US /ˌhɔɪ pəˈlɔɪ/ disapproving or humorous

ordinary people

Moving back to my side of the puddle, Merriam-Webster’s notion of the term is:

Definition of hoi polloi
1.  :  the general populace :  masses

They offer a usage comment that begins, “In Greek, hoi polloi means simply “the many”.

Summing up, a little digging suggests that “common knowledge” is more like a scatter diagram than a single point.
There is uniformity in regard to the original Greek:  “the many”.  Right there we have undone the AHD usage panel’s assertion
about the term “properly” meaning the same thing in both Greek and English.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 April 2017 12:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  468
Joined  2007-02-17

The earliest examples given in the OED, from English poets who had a knowledge of Greek, add the English article.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 April 2017 12:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1603
Joined  2007-01-29

I’ve always had a soft spot for people who can start an argument with themselves in an otherwise empty room.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 April 2017 10:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  718
Joined  2013-10-14
cuchuflete - 20 April 2017 10:06 AM

Common knowledge?  Let’s have a quick look.

The AHD lexicographers seem to disagree to some extent with the usage panel.

Here is what the lexicographers say:

hoi pol•loi (hoi′ pə-loi)

n.
The common people; the masses.
________________________________________
[Greek, the many : hoi, nominative pl. of ho, the; see so- in the Appendix of Indo-European roots + polloi, nominative pl. of polus, many; see pelə-1 in the Appendix of Indo-European roots.]




Note that they tell us that it means “the many” in the original Greek.  Their first English definition is the common people, followed by the masses.

Given that variation of meanings among the professional staff and the usage board, I wouldn’t go so far as to call the statement of Greek-English equivalence “common knowledge”.

Random House Unabridged offers this:

plural noun
1.
the common people; the masses


Collins English Dictionary gives a British English view that similarly disagrees with AHD’s usage panel:

1.
(often derogatory) the masses; common people
Word Origin
Greek, literally: the many

American Heritage, in another publication, adds yet another meaning:

The masses, the ordinary folk; the phrase is often used in a derogatory way to refer to a popular preference or incorrect opinion:  From Greek, meaning“ the many.”
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy


Oxford Dictionaries online agrees:

Origin
Mid 17th century: Greek, literally ‘the many’.


Cambridge has a different definition entirely:

UK /ˌhɔɪ pəˈlɔɪ/US /ˌhɔɪ pəˈlɔɪ/ disapproving or humorous

ordinary people


Moving back to my side of the puddle, Merriam-Webster’s notion of the term is:

Definition of hoi polloi
1.  :  the general populace :  masses

They offer a usage comment that begins, “In Greek, hoi polloi means simply “the many”.



Summing up, a little digging suggests that “common knowledge” is more like a scatter diagram than a single point.
There is uniformity in regard to the original Greek:  “the many”.  Right there we have undone the AHD usage panel’s assertion
about the term “properly” meaning the same thing in both Greek and English.

I agree with everything you just posted, but it is irrelevant to my previous comment, which was in response to Dave’s accusation that I failed to cite AHD in one of my previous comments. My reference to ‘common knowledge” specifically referred to any material that is considered common knowledge or factual information does not need to be cited. Furthermore, my position is not opposed to the hoi polloi usage either way. My argument was specifically on the redundancy aspect of its usage( which we need not go into again).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 April 2017 11:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6275
Joined  2007-01-03

My reference to ‘common knowledge” specifically referred to any material that is considered common knowledge or factual information does not need to be cited.

But you didn’t just state the factual information, you copied it word for word.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 April 2017 02:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  718
Joined  2013-10-14
Dave Wilton - 21 April 2017 11:03 AM

My reference to ‘common knowledge” specifically referred to any material that is considered common knowledge or factual information does not need to be cited.

But you didn’t just state the factual information, you copied it word for word.

I must clarify: I did not copy anything word for word nor did I fallaciously represent a statement as if it were my own. Your assumption is erroneous, but it’s your prerogative to believe what you believe.  It would be obviously easier for me to just say, without a scintilla of trepidation: “You’re right I forgot to cite my information”, but that’s not the case.

Did you read my comment in post #46?

“I am very interested in understanding your assertion. I said:” The phrase comes from Greek where it means the masses and in English, when properly used, means the same thing.”
This is considered common knowledge and a factual statement. I was not intentionally using AHD words; I was just submitting a fact to which I had previous knowledge. What part of that sentence should I have cited or quoted?”

Keep in mind, if I had actually copied what I wrote from a source it would not fall under the guidelines of plagiarism, because what I wrote is common knowledge and a common phrase; What I wrote: is not an original phrase, it is a factual statement. Therefore, it does not need to be cited. Furthermore, it does not fall under the five-consecutive-word rule.

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 4
4