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

421–430 of 735 posts

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

#421

Post by ezekiel68 »

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…

Exactly. You know what else is completely unnecessary? The Eiffel Tower. Big Ben. The reflecting pool at the Mall in Washington, DC. Ten million other thngs. That something is 'completely unnecessary' is a completely insufficient reason to annihilate it, especially it it has wormed its way into common experience.

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

#422

Post by Izkata »

jon-wood wrote: post #305
gwd wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Also native speaker: I'd say a closer translation would be "this post is based on many good points". Or "founded on".

I don't know how universal this is (I don't see anyone else making similar points yet..), but I use all three phrases because at least in my head they have subtle differences:

* "Comprised of" means the pieces make the whole, or at least the basis for the whole, and are an important part of it.

* "Composed of" drops the "important part of it" from "comprised of".

* "Consists of" is even broader, not only including "parts that make the whole" but also "a unit that can be broken into parts".

The differences aren't always relevant, but meaning is lost if they're treated as the same thing.

Edit: Found two further down on this page who each made one of my points, but not all three, so at least I'm not alone here.

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

#423

Post by make3 »

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"…

comprises means whatever people use it for

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

#424

Post by ezekiel68 »

FabHK wrote: post #103
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…

> That's true for many, many other words. Well, yes, but other words aren’t wrong and irritating to many readers. The point is that the usage in question has several disadvantages, but zero redeeming features. > "To comprise" and "to be comprised of" contain the same word, but not in the same sense. That’s not the point. “To shoot” and “to be shot” contain the same word, but mean opposite things, but that’s a well un…

There is no legal right "not to be irritated". It is incorrect to state that this particular case has "no redeeming features". The fact that the phrase is in common usage is all the justification it needs. What's next, "Won't is not a logical contraction of 'will not'"?

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

#425

Post by karaterobot »

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.

How do we decide whether someone is using a word incorrectly, or if we should update our present reality?

Another question: are there places where accuracy and precision are more important than others? Would an encyclopedia be one of those places? I'll reveal my cards here: I believe so.

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

#426

Post by jamiek88 »

kolinko wrote: post #402
SilasX wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Radio" would be a proper replacement for "wireless".

Funnily enough older people in England still call the radio ‘the wireless’!

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

#427

Post by pastacacioepepe »

fauxpause_ wrote: post #306
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.

I only think it did in the past though.

Then it should have been "This post comprised good points."

The "is" shouldn't be there. I might be wrong tho, I'm not a native speaker.

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

#428

Post by Izkata »

robswc wrote: post #231
logicchains wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I wonder if the editor read "1984" and straight up copied its ideas Maybe George Orwell copied the idea from Esperanto. For instance, "dark" in Esperanto is "notlight", and left is "notright".

I can get behind the "notlight" but "notright"... feels like something my brain would never get used to haha.

Because based on the words it's composed of, it's different from "left" - it would include "forward" and "backward".

Similarly for "notlight" implying including twilight, which "dark" does not.

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

#429

Post by arrowsmith »

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…

> 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.

Isn't it common to drop the "ne" in colloquial speech?

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

#430

Post by [deleted] »

SilasX wrote: post #386
jzb wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN