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

131–140 of 735 posts

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

#131

Post by cookiengineer »

This leaves a bad taste in my mouth because of our history in Germany.

There was a bunch of institutes for the "Erhaltung der deutschen Sprache" which were all founded under the umbrella of a quasi-propaganda organization that officially was just a society/club. [1]

They created their own "purified" dictionary with a "clean language" that was trying to find replacements for foreign words, and strengthen the nationalistic awareness with all its perks.

It was so ridiculous and opinionated that they tried to even enforce the use of "Nagelindiewandschlageisen" instead of using the Swedish word hammer.

They burned all their stuff in the war, but it's somewhat folklore that they were heavily involved with Goebbels and his propaganda in WW2.

They got away with that during the Nuremberg trials so technically this is an accusation from my side.

Culturally I think this is the opposite of what cultures should embrace. Languages will always evolve, and you cannot prevent that.

As a side-note: Those were so puristic people that they even pissed off Adolf Hitler at some point, because they criticised him for using foreign words in his speeches.

[1] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allgemeiner_Deutscher_Sprach...

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

#132

Post by riwsky »

casey2 wrote: post #104
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.

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.

‘Of’ is not itself the problem. The problem is that the direction has flipped from the original usage. It’s like if instead of “my book collection includes all the classics of Russian literature” people started saying “my book collection is included by all the classics of Russian literature”

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

#133

Post by riwsky »

LesZedCB wrote: post #59
pcthrowaway wrote: post #18

That whole page is comprised of the most pedantic arguments for what amounts to policing an evolving language

prescriptivists are a real bummer

Or rather: most people in everyday usage would describe prescriptivists as a real bummer

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

#134

Post by hulitu »

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…

Romanes eunt domum was good enough. /s

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

#135

Post by bloak »

infostud wrote: post #89
hatsune wrote: post #31

If contain and consist and replace a new word and it is supposed to be an encyclopædia then maybe it is a legit move. It's like English professor ranting about use vs. utilise. Mixing words are bad attempts and precise wording is objectively better, tho I highly question if the machine effort replacing a ambiguous word is good enough to detect what it actually means in context.

Yes I've been changing "utilise" to "use" by hand in Wikipedia for many years. When I read "utilise" I hear Homer Simpson in a top hat trying to be posh.

Perhaps some people find monosyllabic words embarrassing. Another word sometimes misused instead of "use" is "leverage", and you'll often find "ubiquitous" in the same paragraph in engineering/marketing contexts. But "leverage" should not always be replaced with "use": sometimes "exploit" would be a better alternative. And "leverage" has a proper meaning in finance, of course.

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

#136

Post by hansworst »

cookiengineer wrote: post #131

This leaves a bad taste in my mouth because of our history in Germany. There was a bunch of institutes for the "Erhaltung der deutschen Sprache" which were all founded under the umbrella of a quasi-propaganda organization that officially was just a society/club. [1] They created their own "purified" dictionary with a "clean language" that was trying to find replacements for foreign words, and strengthen the nationali…

I guess these were the only people to deserve the term “grammar nazi” then

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

#137

Post by za3faran »

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.

I'm curious if that's mainly specific to English. As an Arabic speaker, tremendous care and effort has been taken to preserve Fuṣḥā (formal/High) Arabic throughout the centuries. Language and conjugation that sounds wrong is often shunned or mocked, even though it may partially be spoken in day to day speech in certain contexts. However, the distinction is always there, and such language will not be accepted in official discourse, let alone avenues like poetry and literature.

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

#138

Post by Nevermark »

mock-possum wrote: post #113
FabHK wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Well sure it’d be unsettling but like… what, are you just going to stop language from changing? Good luck with that. We’re just along for the ride, if people start using it that way, then that’s what it means now. Objecting to that is about as much use as to be pissed into the wind.

If language legitimately changes so a sentence or phrase has two opposite yet universally used meanings, (presumably resolved in each instance by context), it would still be better writing to avoid it when clarity of meaning is paramount.

Encyclopedias are a good place to make as few assumptions and gambles as possible with regard to how a reader might comprehend what is written.

Post reply on HN