Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 735 posts

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#101

Post by Isinlor »

p-e-w wrote: post #10

The justifications given in that essay leave a really bad taste in my mouth: > I believe using "comprised of" is poor writing, because > It's completely unnecessary. There are many other ways to say what the writer means by "comprised of". It adds nothing to the language. That's true for many, many other words. In fact, most instances of definite and indefinite articles "add nothing to the language", since the actual…

Slavic languages do perfectly fine without articles. As Polish speaker I say leave them out ;) .

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#103

Post by FabHK »

p-e-w wrote: post #10

The justifications given in that essay leave a really bad taste in my mouth: > I believe using "comprised of" is poor writing, because > It's completely unnecessary. There are many other ways to say what the writer means by "comprised of". It adds nothing to the language. That's true for many, many other words. In fact, most instances of definite and indefinite articles "add nothing to the language", since the actual…

> That's true for many, many other words.

Well, yes, but other words aren’t wrong and irritating to many readers. The point is that the usage in question has several disadvantages, but zero redeeming features.

> "To comprise" and "to be comprised of" contain the same word, but not in the same sense.

That’s not the point. “To shoot” and “to be shot” contain the same word, but mean opposite things, but that’s a well understood result of active vs passive voice, and nobody objects to that. However, imagine some people would start using “to be shot” to mean “to shoot”. So, they’d say “Peter was shot by Paul” to mean that Peter shot Paul, that is, Paul was shot by Peter. And then the dictionary would add that as a secondary meaning. Can’t you see how people might object to that?

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#104

Post by casey2 »

gsinclair wrote: post #16
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #3

This definitely falls deep into the pedantry zone. Lots of modern English uſage was once wrong and has become normalized. The language doeſn't have an Académie calling the ſhots. It inevitably evolves, warts and all.

Sure, but why should people who can’t use the language properly ( ) be an uncontested force in that evolution? ( ) If we can’t say that “comprised of” is objectively wrong, then what _can_ we say about English? Should we accept “bought” as a legitimate past tense of “bring”? Sometimes people are just making a habitual mistake. It happens to me, too.

What about it is objectively wrong? Semantics? There are plenty of words that contain 'of' in the definition, yet are used with of "Because of" being the primary example, and afaict is allowed on Wikipedia. Grammar? "Possessed of" "descended from" etc. This is also very common.

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#105

Post by stOneskull »

p-e-w wrote: post #10

The justifications given in that essay leave a really bad taste in my mouth: > I believe using "comprised of" is poor writing, because > It's completely unnecessary. There are many other ways to say what the writer means by "comprised of". It adds nothing to the language. That's true for many, many other words. In fact, most instances of definite and indefinite articles "add nothing to the language", since the actual…

> Just leave them out, right? "I go house."

the ministry of truth is easier to write as minitrue, yeah.

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#106

Post by linker3000 »

netsharc wrote: post #39
tsimionescu wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it became common usage, yes? If most people make "a habitual mistake", then by whose authority of it a mistake? > Sure, but why should people who can’t use the language properly (*) be an uncontested force in that evolution? How do you think English and all other modern languages formed? If some authority were able to stop people who can't use a language properly from evolving it, the people on the British isles w…

The most fun is reading threads about cars or racing, where people say "break" when they mean "brake". Should we accept "break" to mean deceleration, or as a noun for the equipment to slow down a vehicle, then?

I'm not sure if you'll win or loose that argument.

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#108

Post by stOneskull »

housemusicfan wrote: post #35
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #3

This definitely falls deep into the pedantry zone. Lots of modern English uſage was once wrong and has become normalized. The language doeſn't have an Académie calling the ſhots. It inevitably evolves, warts and all.

No one seems to understand Wikipedia operates as a system of lords and serfs, where a powerful few pull this crap all the time . Most relevant example I can think of is when Mac OS X was renamed and stylized to "macOS" someone went and systematically did a find and replace all instances of "OS X" to macOS even in situations where it made absolutely no sense as the article was explicitly talking about prior versions.…

they don't even have to pay their winston smiths to work

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#109

Post by stOneskull »

tsimionescu wrote: post #30
gsinclair wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but why should people who can’t use the language properly ( ) be an uncontested force in that evolution? ( ) If we can’t say that “comprised of” is objectively wrong, then what _can_ we say about English? Should we accept “bought” as a legitimate past tense of “bring”? Sometimes people are just making a habitual mistake. It happens to me, too.

If it became common usage, yes? If most people make "a habitual mistake", then by whose authority of it a mistake? > Sure, but why should people who can’t use the language properly (*) be an uncontested force in that evolution? How do you think English and all other modern languages formed? If some authority were able to stop people who can't use a language properly from evolving it, the people on the British isles w…

the meaning of "begs the question" has changed in this way. it's just about always used "incorrectly" now.

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#110

Post by [deleted] »

pbreit wrote: post #93
p-e-w wrote: post #10

The justifications given in that essay leave a really bad taste in my mouth: > I believe using "comprised of" is poor writing, because > It's completely unnecessary. There are many other ways to say what the writer means by "comprised of". It adds nothing to the language. That's true for many, many other words. In fact, most instances of definite and indefinite articles "add nothing to the language", since the actual…

I read this and googled a bit and don't quite understand what the problem is with "comprised of". The author says this "The 9th district is comprised of all of Centerville" should be replaced by "The 9th district comprises all of Centerville"? That's it? Is there some way to see what edits were made?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN