151–160 of 735 posts
Why change "comprised of" to "consists of" (for example) rather than changing it to "comprises"? If you are so hung up on the usage of that word, why not use it in the way you think is correct rather than trying to excise it from Wikipedia?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone can play dress up at home. Getting enrobed by the premier French academic body at $50k per, that's class. Sorry classé
Classe.
Why would someone invest so much energy removing something that is common as mud, and universally understood?
The term "comprises" and/or "comprised of" has a specific usage in patents. Comprising means that at least all of the listed elements must exist, but other elements that are not mentioned in the claim may also be present. This in turn allows for dependent claims.
The alternative term is "consists" and/or "consists of", which means that only the listed elements may be present. It is used almost exclusively when claiming chemical or molecular formulas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t love “is comprised of,” and think it can usually be replaced with something like “contains” or simply “is,” resulting in a better, more direct sentence. But I’m not going to go on a crusade against it.
"My itinerary is comprised of four hotel stays." ---> "My itinerary is comPOSED of four hotel stays." or "My itinerary coNSISTS of four hotel stays." Much better.
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…
Turkish word: Tren (Train)
Supposedly proposed translation: Alttan ittirmeli üstten tüttürmeli çok oturgaçlı getirgeçli götürgeç
Which can be translated to English somewhat literally as "Bottom pushed, top smoking, multi-person-saddle, bringer and deliverer of people" (My best attempt, perhaps GPTs can do better).
However, the thing about them coming up with fake Turkish roots to foreign words (especially French) is totally true. One such example is "okul" (school) which comes from "l'école" but they long time argued that it came from the Turkish root "oku" which also means to study (among "read" and "send prayers"). There are thousands of "inventions" like these.
The weird trend was (still is!) our tendency as a nation to invent Turkish language roots in words from other languages, which once lead to ridiculous stuff like the Sun Language Theory [0].
IM(not so)HO: All language institutes should be left in the past, as they tend to ignore the organic properties of the languages they are supposed to protect.
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.…
No, this is in its essence very petty vandalism, an attempt to force his notion of grammar on the entirely of Wikipedia despite knowing this is forbidden. That this forcing is the intended goal is clear from their own description of the editing process, where they admit to never permanently recording articles with authors who do object to the edits. Instead they just record objectors for six months and then try sniping in the edit again in the hope that the author is not there to protect it anymore.
It was all dumb pedantry until the point where the editor talked about removing instances of "comprised of" inside quotes. Sure, you can add an elipsis if you want trim a quote, but altering words in a quote is equivalent to lying, even if a mild form of lying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I upgraded my breaks and my car slows down a lot better now.". Spot any mistakes? Do you understand what I mean in context anyway? So is it fine to use "breaks" when I mean "brakes"?
Yes I understand; no it is obviously not "fine". I'm not sure what your point is, because I'm not saying to leave "breaks" there. My POV is that changing your sentence to >"I upgraded the bits that slow my car down and my car slows down a lot better now." does not help anyone learn that brakes is correct and breaks is not.
Now for forum comments or low-value writing it's not an issue, but you can argue that having someone who is experienced with using a style guide and communicating consistently adds some authoritativeness to the publications.
In the case of Wikipedia that is a valid thing to aim for.