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

641–650 of 735 posts

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

#641

Post by kragen »

make3 wrote: post #420
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.

one guy deciding to change 90k articles unilateraly is kind of insane indeed.

this is literally what wikipedia is for, so any one guy can change 90k articles unilaterally

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

#642

Post by kazinator »

crazydoggers wrote: post #551
kazinator wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meaning is not macro replacement. If we suppose that "comprised" means "consists of", it does not follow that "comprised of" means "consists of of". (Setting aside, for a moment, that "comprised" does not mean "consists of"). Just like "make" possibly meaning "create" doesn't imply that "make up" can turn into "create up". To comprise means for something to contain certain components (usually with a nuance that the l…

If you look up the word “comprised” in multiple dictionaries they all define it including “consists of”, “composed of”, “made up of” etc. So right off the bat your argument is flawed. Perhaps you would like to define it the way you did, and perhaps some set of people you converse with may, but the point of a dictionary is so we can define words in ways we all agree on so we all understand each other. As we have learn…

I'm looking at Merriam-Webster; it doesn't corroborate your claim; it says that "comprise" is defined as "be made up of". Nothing about "comprised" meaning "made up of". Since Merriam-Webster's "comprise" means "be made up of", it follows that the past tense "comprised" means "was made up of".

> the language losses something in the process

Not all trends in usage are good and useful, and it's probably good to nip them in the bud. This one happened too long ago to fix now.

You cannot wish that single words be returned to 1750. If you want to return to the English of 1750, you have to want all of it, including giving back "sensitivity" and using "sensibility".

With comprise being used commutatively, what exactly have we lost? It is this:

Suppose that comprise is used with a pair of words, and you don't know what either of then mean. Out of any context, you hear " ...the froznitch comprises the gronfuzzle ...".

If comprise is unidirectional, always meaning "whole comprises parts", then you can infer that froznitch refers to some aggregate, and gronfuzzle denotes some set of parts (in spite of both words appearing to be singular).

What we have lost by comprise being commutative is the ability to make that inference.

That inference has little value, because if you have no idea what the words mean, it makes no difference whether you know which refers to the parts and which to the whole.

> with the evolution of pidgins, and creoles etc

"Drivel spoken by poor colored folk is destroying our language!"

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

#644

Post by bandyaboot »

fknorangesite wrote: post #497
bandyaboot wrote: post #114

> It's illogical for a word to mean two opposite things. Maybe he can tackle “literally” once he is finished with “comprise”.

The use of "literally" as an intensifier goes back centuries. I'm not sure why people act as if it's some kind of new development.

I don’t doubt you’re right, but that doesn’t make it logical.

I’m curious how common this sort of thing is in other languages—words or phrases taking on the opposite meaning of their literal definition. “I could care less” is an example of a phrase that’s commonly used in English. Perhaps it’s debatable whether that one has achieved acceptance or not.

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

#645

Post by ludston »

devnullbrain wrote: post #640
ludston wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If somebody doesn't know what ironical means they are either a child, ESL or one of the lucky 10000 and therefore don't deserve any disdain?

Too late to choose whether or not to be disdainful, you've already excluded them from understanding you.

It's never too late to learn the meaning of a new word. Why just yesterday I was reading The Count of Monte Cristo, where the author used "felicity" in a context I'd not seen before. Fortunately in my very pocket was a powerful device that includes a dictionary unsurpassed in the history of mankind, and thus my brief ignorance was swiftly overcome! Perhaps the author meant to exclude me? Oh dear...

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

#646

Post by aaron695 »

samirillian wrote: post #217
soraminazuki wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > It's completely unnecessary. There are many other ways to say what the writer means by "comprised of". It adds nothing to the language. I wonder if the editor read "1984" and straight up copied its ideas. In the novel, the totalitarian state of Oceania uses that exact same justification to promote the use of the Newspeak language: > After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of…

I don't agree with your 1984 analogy at all. A better source might be George Orwell's actual, explicit opinions on politics and the English language: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel... Orwell certainly did not take an "anything goes" approach to language, which is essentially what you and others argue for, in the mistaken belief that you're somehow striking a blow at totalitarianism. From…

[dead]

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

#647

Post by stjohnswarts »

I might have to take up a new hobby against this user and undo their damage to wikipedia. We don't need these kinds of white knights patrolling the kingdom thinking they're doing something good when they're actually damaging the fabric and efforts of others.

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

#648

Post by SilasX »

KeplerBoy wrote: post #622
SilasX wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure i meant to point out that there's not necessarily a difference between natural and clear, concise language.

Yes, there is: the case you were replying to.

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

#649

Post by stjohnswarts »

jl6 wrote: post #122

Wow, there’s a lot of unjustified negativity in this thread. The whole encyclopedia (and a whole bunch of the wider world of computing) is built out of this kind of hyper-focused nerding over details. These changes don’t make your day worse. He’s not shoving it in our faces or claiming it’s going to save the world. We don’t know what’s going on in this editor’s life or what he “should” be doing with his time instead.…

It's built of people nerding over articles and topics, and not language fascism. This person just has some kind of personal vendetta against a prepositional phrase that 99% of English speakers have no issue with at all. That's not very healthy for wikipedia or him. The funny thing is I -agree- with his take on usage, I just don't agree with him trying to lording it over all of wikipedia.
Post reply on HN