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

281–290 of 735 posts

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

#281

Post by DANmode »

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 just made me realize the trend of using "myriad" in HN comments died out.

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

#282

Post by captainmuon »

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"…

I would say "comprises" in the active voice means "encompasses". X not just contains Y, but X is made up of Y.

When X comprises Y, then Y constitutes X.

Or to use passive: X is made up of Y, X is comprised of Y. Y are encompassed by X.

"Is comprised of" is a totally cromulent use and I would claim it is more logical and more easily understood than the "X comprises Y" usage.

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

#283

Post by yellowapple »

jasomill wrote: post #156
redmorphium wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

"I'll be staying at four hotels."

"I plan on staying at four hotels.", if you want to more accurately preserve the original meaning (just because it's on the itinerary doesn't mean I'll actually be staying at all four hotels, but it does typically mean there's a plan I intend to follow).

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

#284

Post by detaro »

George83728 wrote: post #243
rvnx wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

Legos is another one of those which I never got why people were so insistent on quoting the corporate statements on it so vehemently.

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

#285

Post by ape4 »

devnullbrain wrote: post #261
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"…

I feel the same way about s/use/utilize. It's like Joey on Friends using a thesaurus. See also 'Due to the fact' -> 'because'

I agree with you "at this point in time" (aka "now")

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

#286

Post by naniwaduni »

jfk13 wrote: post #274
naniwaduni wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> All Gaul comprises three parts -> Three parts are comprised of all Gaul. No, that doesn't work. You could, however, say "Gaul is comprised of three parts". https://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/cw-comprise-comprised...

No, I know, I'm saying that the expected, compositional, interpretation of the phrase (a) exists and (b) is just a slightly archaic passive, and it would still be perfectly cromulent, just backward.

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

#287

Post by devnullbrain »

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.

Evolution isn't unidirectional. English reached what it is today not only through the influence of people using words with new meanings but also with the force of people mandating style, taste and opinion. You wouldn't use 'normalized' if it wasn't for Noah Webster calling the shots.

Moralising about caring about style is itself prescriptivism.

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

#288

Post by shadowtree »

Mental health is a spectrum, it is good this specific persona found an outlet that causes zero harm to himself or others.

Profile of him: https://medium.com/backchannel/meet-the-ultimate-wikignome-1...

Interesting comments around social on this specific persona - the literal grammar nazi.

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

#289

Post by yellowapple »

bombcar wrote: post #223
riffraff wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There’s a number that change over time; awful and terrible for example. Very old hymns talk about how awful and terrible God is, for example.

I mean, it's accurate either way, at least in the Old Testament.

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

#290

Post by jzb »

This is one of those issues where I have strong feelings that are in deep conflict. I agree that grammar / usage pedantry can be bad in many ways, that language evolves and you have to accept that.

On the other hand... there's value in the stance that words mean things and lazy usage that leads to "well, people use it this way now so we're going to update the dictionary" is frustrating and not for the good.

I like it when people use comprise correctly. "The book series comprises 20 novels and 5 novellas" or "the Tarot deck comprises 78 cards." I don't think it's a big win that lazy usage has led the various dictionaries to just throw up their hands and accept the other usage.

But I also understand that after seeing comprise used the other way all the time, it seems silly to argue against it after a point. It's a form of disagree and commit, I suppose - you have to know when you've lost the argument and sticking with a specific usage has no virtue.

The hill I'll die on is "then" and "than," though. In the past 5 or 10 years I've noticed a creeping trend of people writing "more then" rather than "more than." "Then" should be used for time, "than" is used to compare things. "More then" makes no sense as a comparison. But, at some point, it started becoming a more and more common error and now I think people honestly think it's correct because they've seen it online so much. Probably driven by autocomplete.

I could totally understand going on a Wikipedia rampage and replacing every instance of "more then" that exists.

As a side note, I find it hilarious that discussing proper English usage with technical folks - who are often deeply passionate about the correct way to do this or that in their area of expertise - are usually like "oh, that's not important. Grammar and spelling are stupid. I can't be bothered to learn that." But God help you if say "container" when you mean "container image" or something like that, because you'll get a lecture on how absolutely nothing you've written past that can be taken seriously because you got a tiny technical nuance wrong.

Post reply on HN