601–610 of 735 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
OK, but does that mean the phrase should be used as such in an encyclopedia? For instance, the word "biweekly" now means both "once every two weeks" and "twice per week". I don't mind usage of that word for those two meanings. Obviously, linguists can gather data and analyze how it's being used. They may conclude that one meaning was more favored 50 years ago and the other meaning is now. But when I'm reading an ency…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
OK, but does that mean the phrase should be used as such in an encyclopedia? For instance, the word "biweekly" now means both "once every two weeks" and "twice per week". I don't mind usage of that word for those two meanings. Obviously, linguists can gather data and analyze how it's being used. They may conclude that one meaning was more favored 50 years ago and the other meaning is now. But when I'm reading an ency…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
He's not correcting the usage of people chatting on street corners here. He's fixing bad usage in an encyclopedia. Good usage improves clarity. This is why editors have style guides.
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.
I'm finding this entire comment section confusing and I genuinely want to understand what is so offensive about what this editor did. To me this does not look like a problem that requires a solution and I even appreciate the essay (I've always had a hard time understanding the usage of 'comprises'). ...yet I'm seeing unironic comparisons to both 1984 and Nazi Germany, so ... what this person did is evil? Can someone…
Even though this person is a lone wolf, their actions feel disturbingly authoritarian. This level of compulsion and control is immensely off-putting to the average person. Anyone who puts this much effort into controlling information seems like someone worth confronting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Wikipedia editor here is not allowing personal use, part of their proposal is to edit quotes too - to me it reads as if the person has problems with compulsion and doesn't want to stop themselves from "correcting people" (which is not correction so much as forcing that editor's own personal linguistic predilections on others). There methods comprise of robbing others autonomy. (Wording chosen purposefully!).
This part of the editor's process bothered me, too. Overall I agree with his premise and have no problem with what he's doing. In fact, I think he is improving Wikipedia with his edits. But changing quotations seems like a step too far. I think his practice of changing a quotation to a paraphrasing (where it doesn't really matter if the article includes a quotation or not) is fine (if a little obsessive). But actuall…
As a non-native English speaker, I appreciate pedantic editors like this one a lot. When I read Wikipedia, I want the text to be easy to understand and consistent with the rest of Wikipedia and when I edit, I want people to improve what I wrote. I wish everything I wrote had a copy-editor as pedantic as Wikipedia power users. Some people are complaining about overly zealous editors who delete a lot of and as an Inclu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Okay now you're just trolling me. The question that starts with "I have a question for you." Did you look at the Orwell link. > Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes. Language is indeed consciously shaped. Look at the history of Italian. It doesn't just happen, and Wikipedia definitely doesn't just happen. And if you…
"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"…