If we are going to crack down on style, there are far bigger fish needing a fry. I hate how common passive voice has become, but I'm not going on an edit crusade to eliminate needless uses.
Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
451–460 of 735 posts
Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
#452I don't know the right solution to this problem, but I wish there were some kind of effective defense mechanism in open society against activist superminorities. Pedants tilting at windmills shouldn't be able to alter the cultural landscape this easily. I am aware that their problem and my problem are privileged "first-world problems". The seeds of the open society carry the germ of this pathology, I guess.
After your first sentence, I thought you were going to argue the opposite. This person's arguments seem to hold water. Aren't the people that argue with him and want to revert his edits a (very strange) activist superminority? Maybe we need a defense mechanism against bike-shedding, no matter what color bikeshed one prefers?
> This person's arguments seem to hold water.
Not in the slightest. Categorically, he's using prescriptive arguments, which are bunk. Language evolves, people can use it however they want.
Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
#453Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Do you really believe the loss society would suffer from editing "comprised of" in Wikipedia articles is actually comparable to what it would suffer if they discriminated against half the population on TV?
I can only speak for myself, but the actual phrase “comprised of” is the least interesting thing to discuss when it comes to this topic.
I am fascinated by a single person taking up the cause of “correcting” the language of others based off of their personal linguistic aesthetic preference.
I don’t see many people saying “I often have to stop at the words ‘comprised of’ and reevaluate the meaning of the sentence that I’m reading lest I completely misunderstand it.” This isn’t actually in practical service of clarity, it’s an exercise in preserving a sense of meaningful posterity — a deeply personal and sentimental endeavor despite what “reasons” one is able to elucidate.
Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
#454Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case, history.
As my parent post points out, it is certainly not history in the legal system and other fields where precise and Technical meanings matter.
That only applies in cases of ambiguity at which point it’s often best to avoid both the old and new definitions.
Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
#455Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does wikipedia work? How does language work? Linguists have firmly determined that it does not work by a coterie of elites handing down decisions about correctness, regardless of what france pretends their "immortels" do. That also doesn't mean "anything goes" either, obviously, since we do clearly speak a mutually comprehensible dialect through no intentional coordination. It's an interesting subject! You could…
You literally didn't answer my one question, yet you keep asking more. Even Socrates answered questions when asked. I could engage your other points, but why bother
You want me to answer questions like "how do we make judgements about things?" I don't think this is that sort of venue sorry.
Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
#456It is interesting that the account hasn't been flagged as a "single purpose account." I had an account in the past. I made two edits before people who disagreed with my edits started screaming WP:SPA[0]. It really soured my interest in contributing. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_accou...
Wikipedia rules and policies are wielded as weapons more than they're used for their intent, or even as they're written. This account hasn't been flagged because more people defend it than attack it.
Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
#457Earlier quoted context omitted.
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”?
Not really the main point of my comment, but okay.
Firstly, mapping symbols to sound is arbitrary and based on convention.
I don't speak French, but I wouldn't say français.e.s is that much worse than français(e)s, pronunciation-wise. But I do agree that -.e.s is a bit odd. Kinda like w/ and w/o in English. I mean, seriously, why isn't it w. and w.o. like any other abbreviation.
Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
#458Earlier 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…
Or they'll assume you're a native speaker familiar with a given dialect or specific idioms. Dropping "ne" is common in spoken French many places to the point that to many speakers you'll sound stilted and/or old if you included it - the first time I was told (as a teenager) I sounded "old" for using ne..pas was around 30 years ago.
The son in the family I stayed with on on a school trip back then found it hilarious how often I used "ne ... pas" instead of just "pas", e.g. "c'est pas grave" [1] rather than "ce n'est pas grave".
[1] Here's a song titled "c'est pas grave" by French group Columbine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yyjPxvNLGk
Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
#459Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Those are just autantonyms, and English has plenty already. First you dust the cake, then you dust the table. The castle is impregnable. And if you add more collocial words, wicked now is good, but also means bad. When a song is cool, you mean it's hot. People tend to not object to that.
I think auto-antonyms should be avoided in an encyclopedia. (And also in scientific publications, text books, and laws.)
Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”
#460Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
Ever read pidgin? Mutually intelligible, really neat.