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

241–250 of 735 posts

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

#241

Post by denton-scratch »

hhjinks wrote: post #199
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…

I don't see it. The 50 states comprise the United States. The United States is comprised of the 50 states. You can change the word, and the exact same "issues" persist. The 50 states make up the whole of the United States. The whole of the United Sates is made up of the 50 states.

No - "The United States comprises 50 states".

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

#242

Post by pastacacioepepe »

fauxpause_ wrote: post #236
denton-scratch wrote: post #214

"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"…

This post is comprised good points.

> This post is comprised good points.

This post comprises good points.

This post consists of good points.

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

#243

Post by George83728 »

rvnx wrote: post #173
George83728 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll never understand people who are sticklers for 'correctly' using some corporation's trademarks. "Can you xerox a copy of that for me?" "You know, our photocopy machine is made by HP and the Xerox corporation doesn't like when people genericize their..." Why the hell do they care on the corporations behalf? If you aren't being paid by that corp to care.. then why?

"Can you xerox for me, or can you IBM my software" ? Never heard of such, I understand why they get upset if someone sprinkle the sentences with ads.

I'm not talking about people who are unfamiliar with the term xerox, meaning 'photocopy' (which has been in use this way for decades.) I'm talking about people who object to the use of this term because the Xerox company hates it (they could in principle lose their trademark because of it, but that's not my problem.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox#Trademark

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

#244

Post by klyrs »

prepend wrote: post #180
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 seems like the editor is just fishing for a reason to make lots of edits and backed into logic so their stuff doesn’t get reverted. I love wikis and knowledge bases but this is exactly the kind of stuff that detracts. On one case, who cares what this person does with their time. On the other case, it wastes the attention of 90k authors who need to figure out whether they care and have their writing style overridde…

> On the other case, it wastes the attention of 90k authors who need to figure out whether they care and have their writing style overridden by a rando.

On the other hand, if you're editing wikipedia and you expect your writing to not be subject to rando edits, you won't last long.

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

#245

Post by kazinator »

Prepositions combine with verbs to form phrasal verbs, and it's possible for phrasal verbs to have their own semantics that is removed from the base verb.

For instance, "get in" or "get up" are different verbs from "get".

It's also possible for a participial adjective (formed by "to be" + participle + preposition) to be an idiom.

An example of this is "to be heard of" which means to be known or recognized. This has distinct semantics of its own, not simply coming from the phrasal "to hear of". You can be heard of, or have heard of.

"to be comprised of" is the same kind of adjective, which happens not to be derived from a "to comprise of" verb.

It's not necessary for a "V of" verb to actually exist in order for "be V of" to exist, and to have semantics distinct from V.

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

#247

Post by naniwaduni »

denton-scratch wrote: post #214

"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"…

The (expected) face-value meaning of "comprised of" is usually best substituted by "part of": All Gaul comprises three parts -> Three parts are comprised of all Gaul.

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

#248

Post by denton-scratch »

317070 wrote: post #127
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…

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.

"Wicked" to mean "good" is slang. So is "cool", used in that sense. Slang is not encyclopaedic language.

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

#249

Post by kcb »

fauxpause_ wrote: post #236
denton-scratch wrote: post #214

"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"…

This post is comprised good points.

Don't utilize comprised.

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

#250

Post by coding123 »

mmcnl wrote: post #221
denton-scratch wrote: post #214

"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"?

Word perfect or word press
Post reply on HN