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

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

#531

Post by OJFord » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:47 PM UTC

tayo42 wrote: post #498

epgui wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know about the unhinged comments, but grammar is important and people who don’t care are wrong not to care.

Thats just your opinion. if you understand me and i understand you then were good. my experience with grammar is that it just explains how we talk, like music theory. when your young and learning to speak, you just speak, your parent (probably) don't sit down with a white board and explain noun and complex verbs tenses at the age of four

I understand you, but it's more difficult than if you wrote correctly (according to my arseholish prescriptivist rules, if you like, yes) - you're communicating less effectively by not subscribing to the standard rules; I misread you, take longer to understand your meaning, it takes patience and begins to frustrate.

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

#532

Post by dmonitor » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:47 PM UTC

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…

just wait until they learn about the etymology of awful and awesome. both come from the word awe, but mean completely opposite things.

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

#533

Post by pc86 » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:49 PM UTC

tayo42 wrote: post #520

epgui wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, what things were good and when? Your young what?

If we were speaking out loud you could figure it out

We're not speaking. You might as well be saying "if things were different, they'd be different."

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

#534

Post by leephillips » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:49 PM UTC

spondylosaurus wrote: post #481

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"…

Thank you for taking a stand against the ever-encroaching scourge of "utilize." That one bugs me almost as much as "in order to" does. (Just say "to"!)

“in order to” and “to” have different shades of meaning, and sometimes different meanings entirely (although I guess you’re right that most instances of the first can be replaced by the second).

Think about

“I walk to work.”

and

“I walk in order to work.”

Close, but not quite the same.

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

#535

Post by dllthomas » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:50 PM UTC

inimino wrote: post #524

prepend wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it’s not a mistake to everyone, it’s just a mistake in this person and some others eyes. But it’s an accepted usage of the words. I’m not exactly familiar with specific editorial duties, but it seems NYTimes editors allow “comprised of” [0] so they don’t seem to correct all occurrences of “comprised of” by changing text to “composed of.” [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=%22comprised+of%22+site%3Any...

Yes it's a mistake exactly in the eyes of those who know the meaning of the word. "com" + "prise" = "grasp together". An error can be more common than the correct usage and still be an error. Would you accept "A table setting is included of plate, fork, knife and spoon." as correct usage? What if "included" becomes rarely used in the future and this incorrect usage becomes relatively popular? Would that make it corre…

> "com" + "prise" = "grasp together".

This is a terrible argument first because etymology is not meaning, but more importantly because "grasp together" doesn't seem to rule out the errant meaning. "This table setting grasps together a plate, a cup, and several pieces of silverware." seems if anything less wrong than "A plate, a cup, and several pieces of flatware grasp together this table setting."

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

#536

Post by OJFord » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:50 PM UTC

epgui wrote: post #517

junon wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grammar is a linguistic study and more than just "like, a general guideline." For example, "you're" and "your" are two very different words. Let people obsess. They're not hurting you.

There's also a well-known thing about English in that it's culturally much less prescriptive about grammar than other languages. The American-English philosophy around grammar doesn't necessarily transpose to other grammars around the world.

American English is trying to do away with adverbs entirely! Sometimes I find myself shouting '-ly!' at the screen. (I just wanted to leave that comment here real quick.)

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

#537

Post by anigbrowl » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:51 PM UTC

ezekiel68 wrote: post #414

I 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.

Editing for grammatical/stylistic clarity isn't an alteration of the 'cultural landscape.' By that standard nobody would be allowed to pick up litter.

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

#538

Post by anigbrowl » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:55 PM UTC

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"…

Whenever I come across the word "utilize" in WP, I change it to "use"

Not all heroes wear capes. I also chafe at that misuse so I'm glad to read of your efforts.

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

#539

Post by philwelch » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:58 PM UTC

jaggederest wrote: post #452

JW_00000 wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

ur looking at this from the pov of a linguist...this guy is not a linguist, he is an editor...ppl can use language however they want but i dunno if anyone would write a wiki arty the way im writing this comment...even tho u can perfectly understand what im saying

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

#540

Post by anigbrowl » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:59 PM UTC

gnulinux wrote: post #419

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"…

I know this is shocking to people but if a phrase is systematically used by native speakers, it is then part of the language. There is no notion of native speakers being systematically wrong in linguistics. It wouldn't make sense scientifically. In order to examine natural languages using the scientific method, linguists gather data (i.e. native speakers' spoken or written communication) and then analyze this (i.e. f…

That's nonsense, not all native speakers have equal verbal fluency. Certainly new words or sentence constructions can be coined for amusement or efficiency and may catch on at scale, but if there were no such thing as correctness then there wouldn't be any such concept as incoherence.