621–630 of 735 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Except it's not bad usage. Even Merriam-Webster approves, it's the second definition listed, and an additional usage note validating it: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprise
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no governing body that decides how the English language is to be used. It's defined by the people as they write, speak and interpret it. French for example, is different. They have council with official authority over the language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise
Whether a language has a governing body is irrelevant to whether you should attempt to use clear, easily-understood language. The concerns apply equally in French and English.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm reminded of an old saying, "The world is run by those who show up."
I prefer this one: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... and being antisocial. What's the point of doing things with the sole motivation of annoying people?
Firstly because it makes me laugh, but also it's because it's actually gatekeeping other people's language that is excluding and antisocial. I firmly believe that we ought to accept the language that others use when the speakers intention is clear, even if they "don't speak good". The uneducated don't deserve scorn by default just because nobody rapped them across the knuckles when they used "coz" instead of "because…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AAC. Acronyms are confusing. But some people also say AC -acronyms confuse. I thought of a byzantine WordPress site with editing history or something as well, for a moment, despite the context. Wait, WP for Wikipedia isn't even an acronym, just an abbreviation! If you read this far, sorry for wasting your time. I'm still learning :high_five:
WP for "Wikipedia" is built into the site; most of the internal guidance pages can be accessed via titles such as "WP:WikiProject". [Edit] I generally don't use such acronyms without spelling the term out in full first. But spelling things out in full every time comes across as wordy and pedantic.
And, in defense of WP, W would not be a better option really, except for URLs.
Ironically, my locale's WP edition has failed to or didn't want to adopt /w/ instead of /wiki/ as the leading path segment for Wikipedia articles, as opposed to the English edition.
Also, thinking about this makes me want to search for edit wars and discussion about US vs British spelling on Wikipedia.
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…
Why not? Plenty of English words evolved this way. What's the problem exactly?
In linguistic terms, "comprised of" in English is commonly accepted and understood, and usage almost always overrides "logic" or other rules and regularities in the language.
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 am happy there are people willing to do the work for free and that Wikipedia is now better. Hopefully he corrects more errors in the future so I am less likely to pick up incorrect language in the future when I read the articles. Sounds like the right solution you are looking for to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I prefer this one: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead
Oddly enough, in Margaret Mead's case, that seems to mean lying to the world about Samoan promiscuity to rationalize her own adultery (implying that in the "state of nature", whatever that means, it's no big deal), thus contributing in her own way to the groundwork for the disaster that was the sexual revolution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> twilight Perhaps that is lightandnotlight. We almost have notlight in English: unlit. An unlit room feels twilighty to me. > notright Left in Esperanto: maldekstra I can’t imagine why a language designer would choose “mal” as the prefix for “not”. In English and Spanish (two common languages), mal has some bad connotations (malodour, malady, malfeasance, malo, malformed). Let’s try the opposite: “not left” is defin…
> I can’t imagine why a language designer would choose “mal” as the prefix for “not”. In English and Spanish (two common languages), mal has some bad connotations (malodour, malady, malfeasance, malo, malformed). Well, there's also the Latin word "sinister" which has a very different meaning in English... Kinda seems like a common theme.
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.
Wikipedia is entirely controlled by activist super minorities. Articles are often heavily censored or simply biased. Maybe the whole internet is? But I find myself relying on Wikipedia less and less. I think chat searches are probably the final nail in the coffin for me directly access it.