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

301–310 of 735 posts

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

#301

Post by grammarxcore »

ghayes wrote: post #125
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’s illogical for a word to mean two opposite things. Auto-antonyms are actually quite common in English. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym

One of my favorites is “nonplussed,” because its evolution into two opposite things is both generational and split across British vs North American English.

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

#302

Post by denton-scratch »

ggm wrote: post #20
eru wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Moral, no. But they might influence e.g. textbooks and legal drafting. That ordinateur is not ordinary and l'informatique isn't always very Informative. Unless I am mistaken both English words coming in from the French?

I like the French language; I was once fluent (when I was 6).

So when I was sent on a course to do with computers in Paris, I said that my French was up to it. Wrong! My presence on the course was seriously disruptive, because French technical jargon (which I didn't learn at age 6) is unrecognisable to people who haven't learned that jargon in France (nobody else uses it).

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

#303

Post by samirillian »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #224
samirillian wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

hey qq who decides what correct is

Well this guy on Wikipedia, who clearly cares more then you do, for one. Dictionaries, style guides, people like Orwell, the French do have a ministry to maintain the language.

I've answered your question, now I have one for you: Did you even glance at the link?

I'm sorry, these epistemologically relativist arguments lead to utterly absurd conclusions. How does wikipedia work at all? How can we ever make judgements about anything?

It's bad Cartesianism. Just because we can't know something absolutely doesn't mean we can't know anything. Just because language changes doesn't mean there's no such thing as correct and incorrect usage.

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

#304

Post by crazydoggers »

kazinator wrote: post #245

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 d…

First of all, he seems like a perfectly happy person, so I’m assuming saying he’s “sad” is attacking him personally because you don’t agree with him.. which is sad.

Second, comprised already means “consists of”. Unlike your example, heard, which is the past tense if hear. So “comprised of” essentially means “consists of of” which is nonsense. Hence why it’s better to say “comprises” rather than “comprised of”.

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

#305

Post by jon-wood »

gwd wrote: post #253
pastacacioepepe wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This post is comprised good points. This post comprises good points. This post consists of good points.

> This post comprises good points. As a native speaker, I would say: * Good points comprise this post. * This post is comprised of good points. I'm sure there's an interesting historical linguistics reason for the way things developed, but "comprised of" is well-established usage.

Really? I’d say “this post makes many good points”, “is comprised of” isn’t exactly in common usage these days.

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

#306

Post by fauxpause_ »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #242
fauxpause_ wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post is comprised good points.

> This post is comprised good points. This post comprises good points. This post consists of good points.

I only think it did in the past though.

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

#307

Post by cogitoergofutuo »

I love these one-person crusades against present reality. Words mean whatever a critical mass of people want them to mean. For example, the usage of the present tense here:

"Composed of" and "consists of" are better alternatives.

is incorrect. It should read:

Composed of" and "consists of" were better alternatives.

This thread is literally a clout ATM machine for a group comprised of pedants.

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

#308

Post by jameshart »

naniwaduni wrote: post #286
jfk13 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Passive voice is formed with the word ‘by’ not ‘of’.

The verb ‘to comprise of’ can exist and have a different meaning that ‘to comprise’ or its passive ‘to be comprised by’ - and have a different passive (to be comprised of).

Like, the verbs ‘smell’ and ‘smell of’ do not mean the same thing, nor is one the passive of the other.

- I smell roses - roses are smelled by me - I smell of roses - roses are smelled of by me

Four very different meanings.

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

#309

Post by denton-scratch »

hashmush wrote: post #88
eastbound wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 woma…

Sounds like you have an ax to grind. The whole comment comes of as very dismissive of the feminist movement (which might be justified, I know nothing about feminism in France). > [..] 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). I don't know what to make of this, you'd reject candidates because they used dots ins…

> because they used dots

Written language should be pronounceable - it's a written rendition of a spoken language. Even math formulae are pronounceable. How are you supposed to pronounce “français.e.s”?

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

#310

Post by kevinh »

devnullbrain wrote: post #275
ludston wrote: post #215

I enjoy collecting little things like this to annoy the grammar gatekeepers. Why say "regardless" when "irregardless" means the same thing but also annoys prescriptivists? "Ironical" instead of "ironic" and "less" instead of "fewer". Now that I know, "comprised of" fits in this category, it's definitely going to be a part of the everyday lexicon.

The use of prescriptivists as though it was a sports team is ironic. It's actually you who's pushing a certain use of language despite knowing that it's ambiguous. You're the one enforcing your language on others.

Communication through language seems like it's by its very nature enforcing your language on others.
Post reply on HN