jheem - 31 March 2008 07:31 AM

Let’s not forget the rule against using “the” with “hoi polloi”.

You should also decline the article and noun because it’s being governed by the preposition between. It’s a slippery slope.

But seriously, this nicely illustrates the point.  The rule against using “the” with “hoi polloi” is simple to understand and simple to apply.  It is even simple to justify, so long as you don’t think about it too much.  Once you do start to think about it a bit, then you start down that slippery slope of declensions, and it is no longer simple.  It is easy to be educated enough to point out that “hoi” is a definite article.  It is hard to be educated enough to apply the Greek declension system.  So the rule stops short of that, and if not thinking too hard is what is required for this, we are up to the challenge.

Not to mention that as assimilated into English, the term is hoi polloi, in its entirety. Neither hoi nor polloi have been assimilated into English as separate elements. Therefore, when writing in English, one should treat hoi polloi as a single compound noun and add the English article.

If you don’t accept that the term has been assimilated, then one should decline it as per Greek grammar. You can’t have it both ways.

If you’re speaking English, use English grammar. If you’re speaking Greek, use Greek grammar.

Whilst we are on the subject of “hoi polloi”, I turned to Google to see if the version “hoipolloi” was gaining ground, but Google refused to distinguish between “hoipolloi” and “hoi polloi”, giving results for both.  Does anyone know of a way of persuading Google to do what you ask it to in this instance?

Does anyone know of a way of persuading Google to do what you ask it to in this instance?

Try delimiting the word with quotation marks.

Both “hoipolloi” (in quotes) and +hoipolloi give 27100 reported hits, whereas “hoi polloi” (in quotes) gives 248000, so I don’t think there’s a problem with Google failing to distinguish.  Some of the hits for the unitary form also show “Hoi polloi” e.g. in their titles, but they have “hoipolloi” elsewhere (e.g. in their web address) so these are not mistaken hits.

However, attempting to search for “hoi polloi” while excluding pages that also use “hoipolloi” gives even more reported hits (339000) than “hoi polloi” without exclusion, illustrating once again that Google numbers should be taken with a grain of salt.  That noted, “hoipolloi” without “hoi polloi” gives 25100.

Let’s not forget the rule against using “the” with “hoi polloi”.  This is wonderfully easy to understand.

There is no such rule except in the minds of pedants who have been exposed to too much Greek instruction or overly impressionable people who have been exposed to too many such pedants.  In English, “the hoi polloi” is perfectly normal.  And, as Dave says, if you’re going to treat it as Greek, go all the way: “I don’t like tous pollous,” “the ideas of ton pollon,” etc.

languagehat - 31 March 2008 10:48 AM

Let’s not forget the rule against using “the” with “hoi polloi”.  This is wonderfully easy to understand.

There is no such rule except in the minds of pedants who have been exposed to too much Greek instruction or overly impressionable people who have been exposed to too many such pedants.  In English, “the hoi polloi” is perfectly normal.  And, as Dave says, if you’re going to treat it as Greek, go all the way: “I don’t like tous pollous,” “the ideas of ton pollon,” etc.

I should have written ‘Let’s not forget the “rule” against...’ My bad.  Or rather, there is such a rule, but it is not a rule of English.

I think you are mistaken about the purported rule deriving from people exposed to too much Greek instruction.  The history of the purported rule suggests just the opposite.  “Hoi polloi” entered English in the 18th century, used by authors who appear to have been quite solid with Greek, with the English definite article applied freely.  This usage was only declared incorrect in the early 20th century, when the assumption that any educated person knew Greek was weakening.  I suspect that the rule came about due to anxiety that someone might suspect the writer of not knowing Greek.  Using “hoi polloi” without the English definite article is clumsy, but I think this is just the point.  It draws attention to itself, and therefore to the writer’s erudition.  Or perhaps I should say, to the writer’s “erudition”.

"Except, Geoff Pullum notwithstanding, they’re not always prepositions.  “

Prepositions are always prepositions, and can be distinguished from otherwise identical adverbs by context…

“And “for which there is no need” violates the which/that rule.”

Yet I prefer it, and would choose that form.

OP Tipping - 31 March 2008 04:22 PM

“Except, Geoff Pullum notwithstanding, they’re not always prepositions.  “

Prepositions are always prepositions, and can be distinguished from otherwise identical adverbs by context…


“And “for which there is no need” violates the which/that rule.”

Yet I prefer it, and would choose that form.

Exactly my point, in both cases. In the first, call them adverbs, call them particles of phrasal verbs, they often belong at the end of the sentence. 

As for the which/that rule, someone at Language Log is fond of reading the works of proponents of the “rule” to find how quickly they, themselves, violate it.

I suspect that the rule came about due to anxiety that someone might suspect the writer of not knowing Greek.  Using “hoi polloi” without the English definite article is clumsy, but I think this is just the point.  It draws attention to itself, and therefore to the writer’s erudition.  Or perhaps I should say, to the writer’s “erudition”.

I suspect you’re right.  Excellent point.

Prepositions are always prepositions, and can be distinguished from otherwise identical adverbs by context.

You do realize you’re arguing against someone who authored the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language?

languagehat - 01 April 2008 05:13 AM

You do realize you’re arguing against someone who authored the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language?

Just because he wrote the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language doesn’t mean he’s right about what a preposition is.  His argument that there are no phrasal verbs because they aren’t constituents leaves me wondering if I understand what a constituent is.  I disagree with him on a number of other points about the English language.  Just because he knows what he’s talking about and I don’t doesn’t make him right and me wrong.

"You do realize you’re arguing against someone who authored the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language?”

Honestly, that’s no excuse.

GP likes, as we say in Rightpondia, to take the piss: see, for example, his recent claim on Language Log that English has no future tense.

Just in case anyone’s tempted to take Zythophile seriously, no, GP isn’t “taking the piss,” he’s trying (unsuccessfully, obviously) to educate people who prefer to cling to the notions of “grammar” drummed into them in grade school.

I’m still trying to puzzle out whether I agree with GP or not on prepositions. I suspect that the issue is definitional. Whether he’s right or wrong will depend on the definition of “preposition” and what exactly is meant by “part of speech.”

The future tense question is also definitional. Technically, he’s right, but I’m not sure how much the argument buys him. He is right in that English verbs do not inflect to express the future, they use auxiliaries instead. So by strict technical definition, there is no future tense. But one can express future states in English and there are rules governing the use of the auxiliaries that do so. So for most people it’s a distinction without a difference.