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

651–660 of 735 posts

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

#651

Post by inimino »

dllthomas wrote: post #535
inimino wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Your argument is that etymology doesn't matter, but you also make the etymological argument the other way?

Well, ok, but we are not criticizing use of "comprise" but of "comprised of".

This table setting grasps together [three things].

This table setting comprises three things.

This table setting [together grasps] three things.

These are all correct.

*This table setting is grasped of a plate, cup, and flatware.

*This table setting is comprised of a plate, cup and flatware.

*This is grasped-together of a plate, cup, and flatware.

These are all wrong, for the same reason (so it can't be the Oxford comma).

If you wouldn't say it out loud with "comprised of" replaced by "included of", then it's wrong. That's the simple rule.

The backwards version is "The plate, cup, and flatware is comprised of the place setting" means "The plate, cup, and flatware is the total-grasping-together of the place setting."

It becomes clear if you write it this way how awkward it is, and the preposition clearly seems like the wrong one, so this is why the standard advice is just to avoid this confused, clunky phrasing.

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

#652

Post by jaggederest »

efraim wrote: post #597
jaggederest wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Why is it ok to be prescriptive with things like spelling of words but not grammar or the meaning of words? If people are using words in a way that doesn't make sense to the reader, such as changing the meaning of them to be the opposite like the word factoid, it's not the reader that is wrong by pointing out that the word has a different meaning than intended. I have no problem calling out such use as being wrong.

> Why is it ok to be prescriptive with things like spelling of words but not grammar or the meaning of words?

It's not.

> If people are using words in a way that doesn't make sense to the reader, such as changing the meaning of them to be the opposite like the word factoid, it's not the reader that is wrong by pointing out that the word has a different meaning than intended.

The reader can say "It was unclear", "I didn't like it", or "that seems like it's opposite to what I would expect", but "wrong" is a silly thing to say. None of these things are even absolute within published English literature, let alone just say American, or UK, English literature. Even if you're following a particular style manual things are ambiguous in many cases.

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

#653

Post by Eisenstein »

jonny_eh wrote: post #128
ghayes wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > It’s illogical for a word to mean two opposite things. Auto-antonyms are actually quite common in English. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym

Interesting. I wonder if the word "presently" could count. It can mean both "soon" or "currently".

Momentarily is similar. Could mean 'for a moment' or 'in a moment'.

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

#654

Post by jaggederest »

philwelch wrote: post #539
jaggederest wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Right, I'm saying he may prefer a style over another style but it's not technically or morally "wrong", and so arguing absolutes is pointless. As you say, it's fully understood, anything beyond clarity of communication moves into the realm of preference and subjectivity. Even within English wikipedia articles, the Simple English version is going to be markedly stylistically different from main line English wiki.

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

#655

Post by jaggederest »

kelnos wrote: post #567
jaggederest wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

OP discusses this; the language has not really evolved. Certainly there are some dictionaries that acknowledge the newer confusing usage, but always as an alternate. Also consider the "why": does this phrase pop up more and more often due to misunderstandings and copy/paste? Or is it because people actually want to change the meaning of the phrase and are doing it consciously? I don't see any evidence of the latter.…

> the language has not really evolved.

Are you sure? There appear to have been 90k instances of usage in widely read reference material (e.g. Wikipedia, bar this crusade). I'd say that qualifies.

> I don't see any evidence of the latter.

I'm pretty sure people use it based on the meaning they intend it to have, see prior statement for substantial evidence :P

> sure, language evolves as people use it differently. But why is it any more valid to push the language toward using "comprised of" in this new way, than it is to push the language to avoid it?

I don't think anyone but the Wiki editor is pushing anything. I'm saying use language as you like, just don't try to justify your personal crusade based on "correctness", be it moral or technical. I don't care for that style of usage of "comprised of" either, particularly, but I wouldn't try to tell other people how to write, and I think the meaning and purpose of the phrase is perfectly clear.

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

#656

Post by fsckboy »

soraminazuki wrote: post #577
samirillian wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> your position is much closer to the Newspeak ethos I sure haven't stated "my position" in any of my previous comments. But assuming it refers to common english, I'm reminded of another "1984" concept: doublethink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink Compare this: > common english is Newspeak with this: > War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength The similarity is uncanny. > A better source m…

> > War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength

> The similarity is uncanny.

Is it extremely disrespectful to point out that your previous comment is defending the position that "to comprise is to compose"?

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

#657

Post by thomastjeffery »

logicchains wrote: post #193
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 wonder if the editor read "1984" and straight up copied its ideas Maybe George Orwell copied the idea from Esperanto. For instance, "dark" in Esperanto is "notlight", and left is "notright".

The word "notright" is as clear of an example as you can get: does it mean straight or left? Up?

The most confoundingly powerful feature of language is ambiguity: on one hand, you can't take it literally; on the other hand, you don't have to.

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

#658

Post by soraminazuki »

fsckboy wrote: post #656
soraminazuki wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your position is much closer to the Newspeak ethos I sure haven't stated "my position" in any of my previous comments. But assuming it refers to common english, I'm reminded of another "1984" concept: doublethink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink Compare this: > common english is Newspeak with this: > War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength The similarity is uncanny. > A better source m…

> > War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength > The similarity is uncanny. Is it extremely disrespectful to point out that your previous comment is defending the position that "to comprise is to compose"?

First, my original comment wasn't about defending anything. My objection was limited to a specific justification the Wikipedia editor made.

Second, the phrase is "comprised of," not "to comprise."

Finally, I'd also like to point out that the editor and all people in this thread clearly knows how the phrase is used today. What's the point of arguing about the correctness of a phrase when it does a perfect job of conveying meaning?

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

#659

Post by matteoraso »

alasdair_ wrote: post #500
matteoraso wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Wikipedia is nothing but a superminority making the website their playground, though[0]. If you get rid of the superminority, the website literally couldn't function. The inner workings of Wikipedia are actually a fascinating rabbit hole to fall into, but t…

>a minority of the minority produces a lot They produce a whole lot of edits . They don't actually contribute an especially large amount of content, which is the thing with real value. The content is mostly written by subject matter experts that contribute large blocks of useful text to just a few articles each.

>The content is mostly written by subject matter experts that contribute large blocks of useful text to just a few articles each.

I'm not too sure about that, actually. Wikipedia has a lot of special interest groups to handle niche topics, so I don't think that there's much room for experts outside of the group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject

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

#660

Post by tayo42 »

npteljes wrote: post #511
tayo42 wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i find grammar obsession on the internet to be insane overall. you ever use the wrong their/there/theyre and have some guy reply with some unhinged comment. such odd behavior

Grammar is many things packed in one. For one, it can signal a bunch of things, like maturity, superficiality, seriousness, intelligence. The lack of tolerance, like in you're example, is likely just someone who wants to vent, not a genuine concern for grammar. The other thing is that writing on the open internet means that potentially many people will read the writing. Good grammar is borne out of routine, but this…

I think your putting to much importance on comments on the internet. These are throwaway thoughts. Non of us are changing the world with our comments here. It's just entertainment.
Post reply on HN