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

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

#391

Post by srcreigh » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:27 PM UTC

irthomasthomas wrote: post #179

Now please do same for "factoid". The recent inversion of the definition of factoid is a much bigger problem. The term originates from medical science and means "a FALSE fact that is believed to be true after appearing in print". But some journalists miss understood it to mean "a small, but TRUE fact." Their new definition was false, but is now believed to be true after appearing in print. So, the modern definition o…

“Fact” related words have always had a divergence. Latin factum verb means to do. Various words fall on the objective aspect of action (fact, factual) while others fall on the more subjective “artificial” aspect (factitious, factoid)

The family of the word “act” has similar divergence from similar Latin word actus

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

#392

Post by nmca » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:27 PM UTC

caring about grammar is a mug's game, always has been and always will be.

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

#393

Post by smcl » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:27 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #278

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"…

> It's not just that some people dislike it; it's simply wrong. Language changes. Words frequently develop the opposite meaning of what they originally had—opposites seem to be semantically closer and more prone to switching than completely unrelated words. When a word changes meaning, it is not wrong to use it in the new way, and at some point it even becomes wrong to use it in the original way: if you used "terrifi…

I don't know if it's that simple, and in the case of "comprised of" I think there's good reason to attempt to make a correction. It's not that to comprise is some super common, popular verb that pops up naturally in our day-to-day language. It's relatively rare. My personal opinion is that people believe what they'd probably say normally ("x is made up of y", or "x contains ys" or whatever) sounds too simple in some contexts, so they reach for the the verb they heard some other people use that they presume is more correct and then use it incorrectly. People are conflict-averse and don't often correct their friends/colleagues/clients/whatever so it sticks around. So if the intent is to use a more correct word, surely people would want to know the actually correct way it's used?

And I'm all for "language evolves" - but there's always going to be a time when you correct people. If you have a kid who calls the ambulance the "ambliance" (common one for kids where I'm from) you don't just shrug and say "language evolves", you try to teach them the correct way to speak, spell and write.

I don't know where the line is - what should be corrected and what should be absorbed in to English - but I feel like "comprised of" should be corrected.

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

#394

Post by cronix » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:28 PM UTC

erikerikson wrote: post #291

George83728 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

See also Kleenex

And for that, you can just "google it"

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

#395

Post by lolinder » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:28 PM UTC

sunir wrote: post #325

lolinder wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not just that some people dislike it; it's simply wrong. Language changes. Words frequently develop the opposite meaning of what they originally had—opposites seem to be semantically closer and more prone to switching than completely unrelated words. When a word changes meaning, it is not wrong to use it in the new way, and at some point it even becomes wrong to use it in the original way: if you used "terrifi…

Well, that's not much of a value argument, just a statement of reality that entropy exists and everything becomes crap over time without maintenance. Gardens also grow. But if you don't maintain your garden, they ahem literally become weeded, cough figuratively speaking.

You're welcome to tend your own garden, but until we figure out how to have fair elections I would invite all self-appointed language stewards to leave other people's plots alone.

Languages belong to their speakers, and the only way we have to vote at the moment is with our idiolect.

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

#396

Post by sebzim4500 » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:28 PM UTC

captainmuon wrote: post #268

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I actually prefer the use "is comprised of" over "comprises". For the supposedly correct version, you can almost always say it differently: E.g. simply: A proton contains three quarks. But if you want to use passive voice, there is no good other option. A proton is made of three quarks? Sounds too colloquial. ...is put together from...? No. I think "A proton is comprised of three quarks…

I would object to the sentence "A proton is comprised of three quarks" on scientific grounds rather than grammatical ones. Only a tiny minority of the mass of the proton is in the three constituent quarks.

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

#397

Post by amelius » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:30 PM UTC

dataflow wrote: post #367

woooooo wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a billion of us speaking the language. It's a little presumptuous to tell a billion people what to do and there should probably be some amount of default resistance.

Nobody is telling a billion people what to do though? We're just talking about what word to use in an article edited by a handful of people. The billion people can keep using whatever words they want.

The billion people prefer to read the language that they also use, in all its glory.

What you're defending is a bit like replacing all female TV hosts by men and then saying that nobody surely is against men on TV.

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

#398

Post by 1lint » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:30 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…

I think in the case of "serverless" we still share a common understanding of what the term means, even if the term itself is misleading. This "comprised of" issue is different in that it can easily cause misunderstanding between archaic and modern users of the phrase, where meaning is inverted.

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

#399

Post by everybodyknows » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:31 PM UTC

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.

What is a "clout ATM machine"?

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

#400

Post by v-erne » Sat, May 06, 2023, 5:31 PM UTC

zowie_vd wrote: post #175

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 inspiration for Newspeak is Basic English, which is much like Esperanto but with English words (at least it's described as such — I'm not actually very familiar with Basic English myself). Constructed languages had some avid supporters back in the early 20th century, looking to make some constructed language the international language. Though I don't know much about Basic English, the unique looks of Newspeak def…

I was wondering more about why he put newspeak in 1984 as a way for party to controll people minds and eliminate "though crimes". I do not know history of Basic English and Esperanto but it seems very improbable that their creators were aiming at the same goals as Ministry of Truth.