221–230 of 735 posts
"Comprises" means "consists of". So "comprised of" means "consists of of". It's not just that some people dislike it; it's simply wrong. Whenever I come across the word "utilize" in WP, I change it to "use" (with the edit comment "Don't utilize utilize"). Nobody's ever reverted me for that. I think there is a proper use for the verb "utilize": it means "to render useful". But usually, it's just a substitute for "use"…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> It's illogical for a word to mean two opposite things. And to support your stance against that, I offer this: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/57032/25-words-are-their... They can take "cleave" from my cold, dead hands!
Oh that misses my favorite, "egregiously" which means both done very well and done exceptionally wrong, the latter used more commonly, the former archaic. But in my language we only use the original positive meaning, so I was deeply confused by English using it for a long time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > It's completely unnecessary. There are many other ways to say what the writer means by "comprised of". It adds nothing to the language. I wonder if the editor read "1984" and straight up copied its ideas. In the novel, the totalitarian state of Oceania uses that exact same justification to promote the use of the Newspeak language: > After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of…
I don't agree with your 1984 analogy at all. A better source might be George Orwell's actual, explicit opinions on politics and the English language: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel... Orwell certainly did not take an "anything goes" approach to language, which is essentially what you and others argue for, in the mistaken belief that you're somehow striking a blow at totalitarianism. From…
"Comprises" means "consists of". So "comprised of" means "consists of of". It's not just that some people dislike it; it's simply wrong. Whenever I come across the word "utilize" in WP, I change it to "use" (with the edit comment "Don't utilize utilize"). Nobody's ever reverted me for that. I think there is a proper use for the verb "utilize": it means "to render useful". But usually, it's just a substitute for "use"…
So if most readers are not really confused by the incorrect usage ("comprised of") and they understand roughly what is being said through context, and no readers learn the correct usage of "comprised" because this editor is simply erasing it.. then what is actually being achieved here? If the editor were correcting the bad usages then I would likely consider this a service to the public but as it stands they're just…
"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"?
This felt like an addition to ward of anticipated backlash. As if the author was aware their point might not be received favourably. Hmmm.
I reject the argument that this term is bad because its origins are messy. Similarly a lot of the points put forward here seem like justifications for style rather than actual points (yes - even those ones about supposed clarity).
"Comprises" means "consists of". So "comprised of" means "consists of of". It's not just that some people dislike it; it's simply wrong. Whenever I come across the word "utilize" in WP, I change it to "use" (with the edit comment "Don't utilize utilize"). Nobody's ever reverted me for that. I think there is a proper use for the verb "utilize": it means "to render useful". But usually, it's just a substitute for "use"…
What is "WP"?
Also, wiki bulk edit tools exist, it's not like they're actually editing tens of thousands of articles manually. If you keep track of a bunch of pages, you'll spot a lot of such more or less fully automated cleaning/manual of style/formatting bots and tools that don't really change the content of the articles themselves (some consistency doesn't hurt I guess).
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…