On 11/19/24 09:27, Andy Burns wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

charles wrote:

Pancho wrote:

The hoi polli like some redundancy :-).

"The The many"?

<whoosh?>

Its 'hoi polloi' ( οἱ πολλοί )

<double whoosh?>

You can lead a horse to water...

FWIW common English Usage is what it is, and it is English wot we are
speaking.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 20/01/2025 20:07, Pancho wrote:

On 11/19/24 09:27, Andy Burns wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

charles wrote:

Pancho wrote:

The hoi polli like some redundancy :-).

"The The many"?

<whoosh?>

Its 'hoi polloi' ( οἱ πολλοί )

<double whoosh?>

You can lead a horse to water...

FWIW common English Usage is what it is, and it is English wot we are speaking.

The standard excuse for lazy speaking and grammatical ignorance

--
The higher up the mountainside
The greener grows the grass.
The higher up the monkey climbs
The more he shows his arse.

Traditional

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/21/25 09:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/2025 20:07, Pancho wrote:

On 11/19/24 09:27, Andy Burns wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

charles wrote:

Pancho wrote:

The hoi polli like some redundancy :-).

"The The many"?

<whoosh?>

Its 'hoi polloi' ( οἱ πολλοί )

<double whoosh?>

You can lead a horse to water...

FWIW common English Usage is what it is, and it is English wot we are
speaking.

The standard excuse for lazy speaking and grammatical ignorance

You seem to be confused, I can't spell, I'm shit at grammar, my
handwriting is even worse. I barely scraped grade C at English language O'level. At 16 I had a huge sense of joy knowing I would never need to
write another essay, ever again.

However we aren't discussing grammar, you are supporting an argument,
from first principles, that we should interpret each foreign word
literally, when we adopt a foreign loan phrase, and presumably similarly
for acronyms.

My argument is that we should view foreign loan phrases holistically and
use them in a way that sounds harmonious, standard, to the ear of a
native English speaker.

So in English it is The hoi polloi, and not some convoluted
interpretation of how some ancient bubble would use it in modern
English. Similarly, if PAT testing sounds harmonious to the ear of your
average sparky, that is what we should use.

The ultimate judge of what is right is standard usage.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 21/01/2025 11:22, Pancho wrote:

On 1/21/25 09:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/2025 20:07, Pancho wrote:

On 11/19/24 09:27, Andy Burns wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

charles wrote:

Pancho wrote:

The hoi polli like some redundancy :-).

"The The many"?

<whoosh?>

Its 'hoi polloi' ( οἱ πολλοί )

<double whoosh?>

You can lead a horse to water...

FWIW common English Usage is what it is, and it is English wot we are
speaking.

The standard excuse for lazy speaking and grammatical ignorance

You seem to be confused, I can't spell, I'm shit at grammar, my
handwriting is even worse. I barely scraped grade C at English language O'level. At 16 I had a huge sense of joy knowing I would never need to
write another essay, ever again.

However we aren't discussing grammar, you are supporting an argument,
from first principles, that we should interpret each foreign word
literally, when we adopt a foreign loan phrase, and presumably similarly
for acronyms.

I am arguing for people who use it to know how to use it.

You don't have to use it at all. Using it without knowing how is
pointless afffectation.

The ultimate judge of what is right is standard usage.

No, it isn't. Not where precision counts.


--
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

—Soren Kierkegaard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/21/25 14:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/01/2025 11:22, Pancho wrote:

On 1/21/25 09:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/2025 20:07, Pancho wrote:

On 11/19/24 09:27, Andy Burns wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

charles wrote:

Pancho wrote:

The hoi polli like some redundancy :-).

"The The many"?

<whoosh?>

Its 'hoi polloi' ( οἱ πολλοί )

<double whoosh?>

You can lead a horse to water...

FWIW common English Usage is what it is, and it is English wot we
are speaking.

The standard excuse for lazy speaking and grammatical ignorance

You seem to be confused, I can't spell, I'm shit at grammar, my
handwriting is even worse. I barely scraped grade C at English
language O'level. At 16 I had a huge sense of joy knowing I would
never need to write another essay, ever again.

However we aren't discussing grammar, you are supporting an argument,
from first principles, that we should interpret each foreign word
literally, when we adopt a foreign loan phrase, and presumably
similarly for acronyms.

I am arguing for people who use it to know how to use it.

You don't have to use it at all. Using it without knowing how is
pointless afffectation.

That is a circular insult. The crime of misuse is predicated on the
assumption it is misused.

The ultimate judge of what is right is standard usage.

No, it isn't. Not where precision counts.

The redundancy doesn't make it less precise, less compact perhaps.

WIKI gives a nice example of the word alcohol.


Quote:
---
Some linguists argue that, given that hoi is a definite article, the
phrase "the hoi polloi" is redundant, akin to saying "the the masses".
Others argue that this is inconsistent with other English loanwords.[12]
The word "alcohol", for instance, derives from the Arabic al-kuhl, al
being an article, yet "the alcohol" is universally accepted as good grammar.[13]
---

Cite: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoi_polloi>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 25 Jan 2025 at 18:50:30 GMT, "Sam Plusnet" <[email protected]> wrote:

If someone chooses to use "hoi polloi" then they seem to be indicating a degree of familiarity with (Ancient) Greek ...

No. Just English.

--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 25/01/2025 18:55, Tim Streater wrote:

On 25 Jan 2025 at 18:50:30 GMT, "Sam Plusnet" <[email protected]> wrote:

If someone chooses to use "hoi polloi" then they seem to be indicating a
degree of familiarity with (Ancient) Greek ...

No. Just English.

No, seem is one thing. The actuality is different

--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 21/01/2025 14:49, Pancho wrote:

On 1/21/25 14:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/01/2025 11:22, Pancho wrote:

On 1/21/25 09:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/2025 20:07, Pancho wrote:

On 11/19/24 09:27, Andy Burns wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

charles wrote:

Pancho wrote:

The hoi polli like some redundancy :-).

"The The many"?

<whoosh?>

Its 'hoi polloi' ( οἱ πολλοί )

<double whoosh?>

You can lead a horse to water...

FWIW common English Usage is what it is, and it is English wot we
are speaking.

The standard excuse for lazy speaking and grammatical ignorance

You seem to be confused, I can't spell, I'm shit at grammar, my
handwriting is even worse. I barely scraped grade C at English
language O'level. At 16 I had a huge sense of joy knowing I would
never need to write another essay, ever again.

However we aren't discussing grammar, you are supporting an argument,
from first principles, that we should interpret each foreign word
literally, when we adopt a foreign loan phrase, and presumably
similarly for acronyms.

I am arguing for people who use it to know how to use it.

You don't have to use it at all. Using it without knowing how is
pointless afffectation.

That is a circular insult. The crime of misuse is predicated on the assumption it is misused.

The ultimate judge of what is right is standard usage.

No, it isn't. Not where precision counts.

The redundancy doesn't make it less precise, less compact perhaps.

WIKI gives a nice example of the word alcohol.

Quote:
---
Some linguists argue that, given that hoi is a definite article, the
phrase "the hoi polloi" is redundant, akin to saying "the the masses".
Others argue that this is inconsistent with other English loanwords.[12]
The word "alcohol", for instance, derives from the Arabic al-kuhl, al
being an article, yet "the alcohol" is universally accepted as good grammar.[13]
---

Cite: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoi_polloi>

Different cases, I think.
The only suitable word in English for alcohol is "alcohol", so it has
been fully absorbed into English.

OTOH, it is perfectly easy to use English phrases like "the masses",
"the common people", "the great unwashed" etc. etc. - there are plenty
to choose from.
If someone chooses to use "hoi polloi" then they seem to be indicating a
degree of familiarity with (Ancient) Greek, but by writing "the hoi
polloi" they indicate the opposite. Confusing.

(No. I don't know no steenkin' Ancient Greek.)

--
Sam Plusnet

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)