Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of” • Hacker News Board

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

#381

Post by PoignardAzur » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:22 PM UTC

denton-scratch wrote: post #354

crazygringo wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's simply wrong That makes as much sense as saying that "ne... pas" in French is a double negative and therefore "simply wrong" to use as a straight negative. No -- language isn't math, and English and other languages are chock-full of inconsistencies and seemingly "illogical" things. Language ultimately rests on convention , on real life usage -- not logic. Arguing that a common usage is illogical is fighting ag…

"ne... pas" in French is nothing more nor less than the correct way of formulating certain kinds of statements containing a negative. If you left out either of "ne" or "pas" in such a construction, people would either laugh, or assume you were some kind of primitive language generator. It's absurd that English speakers are so tolerant of incorrect usage. It's partly the pedagogic principle that "All shall have prizes…

"Laugh or assume you're a robot" isn't quite right, though; skipping the "ne" is common in informal contexts.

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

#382

Post by croisillon » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:23 PM UTC

cookiengineer wrote: post #131

This leaves a bad taste in my mouth because of our history in Germany. There was a bunch of institutes for the "Erhaltung der deutschen Sprache" which were all founded under the umbrella of a quasi-propaganda organization that officially was just a society/club. [1] They created their own "purified" dictionary with a "clean language" that was trying to find replacements for foreign words, and strengthen the nationali…

you seem to be the first result with "Nagelindiewandschlageisen" in Google (and i guess i'll now be second)

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

#383

Post by everybodyknows » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:23 PM UTC

cookiengineer wrote: post #131

This leaves a bad taste in my mouth because of our history in Germany. There was a bunch of institutes for the "Erhaltung der deutschen Sprache" which were all founded under the umbrella of a quasi-propaganda organization that officially was just a society/club. [1] They created their own "purified" dictionary with a "clean language" that was trying to find replacements for foreign words, and strengthen the nationali…

> ... find replacements for foreign words, and strengthen the nationalistic awareness with all its perks.

> They created their own "purified" dictionary ...

So, the "Erhaltung" effort was not to preserve existing usage, but to create a new vocabulary aligned with the group's ethno-nationalist agenda. Seems very different from TFA's agenda.

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

#384

Post by JackFr » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

denton-scratch wrote: post #354

crazygringo wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's simply wrong That makes as much sense as saying that "ne... pas" in French is a double negative and therefore "simply wrong" to use as a straight negative. No -- language isn't math, and English and other languages are chock-full of inconsistencies and seemingly "illogical" things. Language ultimately rests on convention , on real life usage -- not logic. Arguing that a common usage is illogical is fighting ag…

"ne... pas" in French is nothing more nor less than the correct way of formulating certain kinds of statements containing a negative. If you left out either of "ne" or "pas" in such a construction, people would either laugh, or assume you were some kind of primitive language generator. It's absurd that English speakers are so tolerant of incorrect usage. It's partly the pedagogic principle that "All shall have prizes…

There was a fascinating article in the Economist many years ago about the worldwide predominance of English. (This was pre ubiquitous internet.)

The reasons given were 1) British colonialism 2) Post WWII American hegemony 3) No one cares if you speak it poorly.

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

#385

Post by v-erne » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

cookiengineer wrote: post #161

v-erne wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm rereading Orwell's 1984 and this all seems a bit like Ministry of Truth and its whole newspeak ordeal (of course MT was a bit more absurd - they wanted to get rid of all ambiguity in language also). I wonder if this was maybe Orwell inspiration?

The organization predates George Orwell by around 20 years... so I guess nope ;D But I agree with the similarities of the Ministry of Truth, and what it wanted to achieve. The issues as I mentioned is that I don't think there's a universal truth to anything; and therefore eradicating wordings or forms of language that are "not good" is a very subjective perspective.

>> The organization predates George Orwell by around 20 years... so I guess nope ;D

I do not understand - OP was mentioning that the organization worked through second world war and was event at Nurimberg trials. An Orwell written 1984 in 1949. What do you mean that this organization predates Orwell ?

I was just insinuating that Orwell might have known about this history (and probably about similar like this) and use this as inspiration for how dictatorships can use purification of lanuguage for their purposes (in case of Orwell it was more about controling "thought crimes" then abount simple national identification).

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

#386

Post by SilasX » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

jzb wrote: post #358

cogitoergofutuo wrote: post #307

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.

Allow me to quote you back to you. "It’s also not really serverless to begin with, because at the end of the day code is being executed on a physical device that many of us might call a “server” [1] A critical mass of people have adopted the term serverless. Therefore, the term means whatever they want it to mean, right? No sense in swimming against the tide here, correct? Yes, words mean what people want them to mea…

Semi-related, it always bothered me that we use the term "wireless" for something that still has wires (just not between the endpoints). Though I don't object, or have a better alternative, and I get the logic of calling it wireless.

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

#387

Post by crazygringo » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:25 PM UTC

denton-scratch wrote: post #354

crazygringo wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's simply wrong That makes as much sense as saying that "ne... pas" in French is a double negative and therefore "simply wrong" to use as a straight negative. No -- language isn't math, and English and other languages are chock-full of inconsistencies and seemingly "illogical" things. Language ultimately rests on convention , on real life usage -- not logic. Arguing that a common usage is illogical is fighting ag…

"ne... pas" in French is nothing more nor less than the correct way of formulating certain kinds of statements containing a negative. If you left out either of "ne" or "pas" in such a construction, people would either laugh, or assume you were some kind of primitive language generator. It's absurd that English speakers are so tolerant of incorrect usage. It's partly the pedagogic principle that "All shall have prizes…

> It's absurd that English speakers are so tolerant of incorrect usage.

Or, one can just as easily say it's absurd that certain pedants are so intolerant of evolving usage.

Language does not proceed by logical deduction. It is shared convention, no more and no less. If a majority of people think a new usage is right, then that's just what the usage is.

When you say "incorrect usage", incorrect according to whom? You? A minority? Why should anyone else take that seriously when they're already communicating just fine?

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

#388

Post by askin4it » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:25 PM UTC

latency-guy2 wrote: post #42

jmyeet wrote: post #17

The psychology of editors and moderators is fascinating. I see them as being cast from the same mold as bureaucrats. All of them, left to their own devices, will invent work and create obstacles. It takes constant vigilance to avoid such people taking over a site and driving everyone away. I also wonder what the correlation is between such people and being on the spectrum: The need for rules, the comfort and predicta…

Intend all the hate you want, they don't care, they will mandate their world even when it's wrong to do so. If hate is what would get them to stop, they'd have quit before they began.

Yep. Definitely a case of one side half-heartedly participating and the other side playing for keeps.

At some point, the toxicity will generate a wakeup call among normal people and they will have to face facts that a really rotten contingent of loudmouth pushy sorts are squatting in the culture, acting as if they own it.

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

#389

Post by a2800276 » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:26 PM UTC

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.

... and being antisocial. What's the point of doing things with the sole motivation of annoying people?

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

#390

Post by SilasX » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:26 PM UTC

KeplerBoy wrote: post #348

spencerchubb wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Words mean whatever a critical mass of people want them to mean. Yes this is true for natural language, but we don't want Wikipedia to have natural language. We want Wikipedia to have clear and concise language.

There's no governing body that decides how the English language is to be used. It's defined by the people as they write, speak and interpret it. French for example, is different. They have council with official authority over the language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise

Whether a language has a governing body is irrelevant to whether you should attempt to use clear, easily-understood language. The concerns apply equally in French and English.