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.
Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
31–40 of 735 posts
Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
#32I have to admit: I have a few phrases like this, that I'd like to do this to! :-)
Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
#33The 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'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.
Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
#34I'm not saying she's wrong, but: In patent claims, "comprising" and "consisting of" are different: 6,151,604 claim 1 is: 1. A data storage and retrieval system for a computer memory, comprising: means for configuring said memory according to a logical table, said logical table including: ... 6,151,605 claim 1 is: 1. A method for allowing a software application to access a configuration file, said configuration file c…
Claim language is very specific:
A claim for an invention "comprising" A, B, and C also generally claims inventions that include other elements. Such claims are usually within the statuary categories of processes, machines, or articles of manufacture.
A claim for an invention "consisting of" A, B, and C, however, does not generally claim inventions that include other elements. Such claims are usually usually within the statutory category of "compositions of matter" which includes such things as useful drug or chemical mixtures.
Here's a link to the relevant U.S. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) section:
https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/current/d0e200824.htm...
Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
#35This 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.
No one seems to understand Wikipedia operates as a system of lords and serfs, where a powerful few pull this crap all the time.
Most relevant example I can think of is when Mac OS X was renamed and stylized to "macOS" someone went and systematically did a find and replace all instances of "OS X" to macOS even in situations where it made absolutely no sense as the article was explicitly talking about prior versions. It was like rewriting history in real time.
Imagine if someone went into a library and started editing history books with a Sharpie to reflect future events.
Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
#36I think, we should make an exception, if the same sentence also includes a reversal of "consists". Example: "The right of way is comprised of tracks, sleepers and ballast, while locomotive and wagons consist a train." (Rationale: We're clearly facing the utterance of an AI with suboptimal vectorization and there is simply nothing we can do about this.) ;-)
Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
#37This 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.
And even if there was an Académie, what authority would they have? Eg the French have one, but that doesn't mean they have any moral authority.
Since the topic is “who defines English”, it’s useful to list our experiences with Académie Française.
- Seats can only be replaced at death, which explains the advanced age. I generally think old people have more experience than younger ones, but opinions vary, and youngism and modernism are a thing.
- The first woman in the Académie, in 1980, was Marguerite Yourcenar, and she probably was the most non-feminist woman they could choose.
- Recently they opposed the “français.e.s” style of writing, sticking to the classic “français(e)s” or “ladies and gentlemen” inclusive writing. It made an uproar because the first one is described as the only inclusive one by feminist organizations, who like to forget that we included women before they were born. So we reached a fun state where the government uses the feminist one, the Académie says it’s not French, all organizations that want to please women align with the government, but I assure you I never receive management-oriented document in feminist writing, I rarely receive resumes or cover letters in feminist style, nor would I accept them if I got them (political militantism doesn’t make a good employee, especially if they pretend including women is a new thing).
Any other fun story about the moral upstanding of the Académie Française would be interesting too.
Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
#38The 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…
Articles obviously add information: is it a specific, known house you are going to (I'm going to the house) or a non-specific/not previously referred to (I'm going to a house)?
When it's your own house you're going to, you could argue the definite article wouldn't add anything, and the phrasal verb to go home drops it (ie. I'm going home), though adding an article is possible and changes the meaning (I'm going to the/a home, in the context of a home for the elderly or some such).
Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
#39Earlier 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.
If it became common usage, yes? If most people make "a habitual mistake", then by whose authority of it a mistake? > Sure, but why should people who can’t use the language properly (*) be an uncontested force in that evolution? How do you think English and all other modern languages formed? If some authority were able to stop people who can't use a language properly from evolving it, the people on the British isles w…
The most fun is reading threads about cars or racing, where people say "break" when they mean "brake".
Should we accept "break" to mean deceleration, or as a noun for the equipment to slow down a vehicle, then?
Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
#40[deleted]