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

121–130 of 735 posts

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

#121

Post by mock-possum »

tsimionescu wrote: post #85
netsharc wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is a completely different example, as this is only a spelling mistake/difference. When these people write "break", they clearly mean "brake". They are not adding the meaning of decelerate to the verb that means to tear into pieces. The evolution of writing is separate from the evolution of language in general. Read and read are still different words even if they are written the same. If the spelling "brake" for…

I actually think it’s close enough that they could be mistaking the root meaning; think of ‘break’ in terms of elemental forces - a windbreak, a breakwater, a firebreak - think of how ‘taking a break’ is slowing down, is decelerating, is ‘braking.’ Breaks slow the movement of energy through a medium. Brake is a pretty easy mistake to make if you’re not sure which is which.

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

#122

Post by jl6 »

Wow, there’s a lot of unjustified negativity in this thread. The whole encyclopedia (and a whole bunch of the wider world of computing) is built out of this kind of hyper-focused nerding over details.

These changes don’t make your day worse. He’s not shoving it in our faces or claiming it’s going to save the world. We don’t know what’s going on in this editor’s life or what he “should” be doing with his time instead. Maybe simple routine work is his way of unwinding from the maddening pace and complexity of the rest of life. Good on him for feeling passionate about something and seeing it through.

We should be grateful there are people willing to do this kind of mundane janitorial work.

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

#123

Post by riwsky »

tsimionescu wrote: post #70
rgoulter wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that this is less extreme than using "literally" to mean "figuratively". Several words in English have multiple separate meanings. > people say "break" when they mean "brake". You were still able to understand what they meant. Rather, instead of "should we accept", I'd ask "can people be expected to understand". I'd think a divergence in language is more severe if it disrupts communication.

No one uses "literally" to mean "figuratively". When some say "I laughed so loud I literally rolled on the floor", they do not, in any way, mean "I laughed so loud I figuratively rolled on the floor". Instead they mean "I laughed so loud, that it was almost like I was literally rolling on the floor". It is merely used as a generic augmentative: the phrase has the same basic meaning with or without "literally", but it…

But no one uses ‘using “literally” to mean “figuratively”’ to literally mean ‘using “literally” to mean “figuratively”’, either. Instead they mean ‘using “literally” in the context of a figurative usage’, as you point out—the censure of which is warranted by its being a lazy cliché. The augmentation is not generic; the coincidence is feigned in the service of irony.

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

#124

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

emodendroket wrote: post #80
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I accept his argument but it is tilting at windmills. Is it valid to engage in mass erasure of a historical record to suit outmoded ideas? The issue here is that an existing word has acquired a new usage and the old guard isn't happy with the change. There was once much grousing about youths failing to properly conjugate second person pronouns. Now it's anachronistic to use them.

"You" is still around so we do still have second-person pronouns.

Used "incorrectly" in place of thee, thou, and thy in familiar speech.

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

#125

Post by ghayes »

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…

> > It’s illogical for a word to mean two opposite things.

Auto-antonyms are actually quite common in English.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym

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

#126

Post by Dylan16807 »

DonHopkins wrote: post #116
housemusicfan wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

That's not nearly as irresponsible and illegal as editing a weather map with a Sharpie to reflect a fictitious future natural disaster and cover up lying in a tweet. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/04/trump-hurrican... >Altering official government weather forecasts is against the law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2074 >18 U.S. Code § 2074 - False weather reports >Whoever knowingly issues or…

You win the non-sequitur of the day award.

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

#127

Post by 317070 »

FabHK wrote: post #103
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 un…

Those are just autantonyms, and English has plenty already.

First you dust the cake, then you dust the table.

The castle is impregnable.

And if you add more collocial words, wicked now is good, but also means bad. When a song is cool, you mean it's hot.

People tend to not object to that.

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

#128

Post by jonny_eh »

ghayes wrote: post #125
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…

> > It’s illogical for a word to mean two opposite things. Auto-antonyms are actually quite common in English. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym

Interesting. I wonder if the word "presently" could count. It can mean both "soon" or "currently".

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

#129

Post by regularfry »

emodendroket wrote: post #62
morsch wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Articles obviously add information: is it a specific, known house you are going to ( I'm going to the house ) or a non-specific/not previously referred to ( I'm going to a house )? When it's your own house you're going to, you could argue the definite article wouldn't add anything, and the phrasal verb to go home drops it (ie. I'm going home ), though adding an article is possible and changes the meaning ( I'm going…

I would leave the argument but tweak the example given to support: it "adds nothing to the language" that we have many more or less perfectly synonymous terms, such as purse/handbag, pop/soda, and so on.

They're regional though. "Purse" and "handbag" don't have the same meaning in the UK, and "pop" and "soda" are rare in their US meaning.

In this case "compose" and "comprise" do have different meanings. "Compose" has the sense of "put together" whereas "comprise" is closer to "contain". You'd never say "contained of" unless you were going for a really archaic sentence construction. I think it's less clear that "comprised of" is incorrect in all cases, but I do agree it sounds ugly and that there's almost always going to be a better phrasing available.

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

#130

Post by inimino »

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…

"impose my preference on everyone else"

By fixing a common mistake on a collaboratively edited encyclopedia? What are you even talking about? Do you have any idea what an editor does at the New York Times?

Post reply on HN