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

681–690 of 735 posts

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

#681

Post by eru »

denton-scratch wrote: post #571
slily wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that different from any other language? For instance, Chinese/Eastern medical jargon is objectively more readable than Western terms (unless you are fluent in Greek and Latin), but that doesn't mean you'll be able to understand them without some prior exposure. French is also spoken outside of France.

I apologise; I routinely discount anything that is in a language that I can't read, and isn't available in translation, which means an awful lot of stuff from the far-east. I assumed doctors everywhere had built an informal consensus to use English, with terminology derived from classical greek; rather as pilots and air-traffic controllers all use English.

If anything, medical people use Latin as their universal language.

At least that used to be the case. In Germany medical students are still required to learn (at least some) Latin.

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

#682

Post by edanm »

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 think there is a proper use for the verb "utilize": it means "to render useful".

I've never heard of that usage for utilize in my life. In a cursory search, I see that the definition of utilize is "to make use of", which to me sounds the same as "use".

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

#683

Post by ttiurani »

lolinder wrote: post #213
capableweb wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With all due respect, if you're not a native English speaker you really aren't in a position to judge what constitutes "better language" They said "find the edited sentences always easier to read" and that's valuable regardless if you're a native speaker or not. Of course, what "better language" is as subjective as "clean code" so probably won't reach any consensus there. But all of this is highly subjective in the…

I was responding to this: > I find it just wild that people would object to better language. They're either saying that their own sense of what is more legible is enough to define what is better, or they're buying into the pedantic arguments in TFA. As to what is easier to read, I think the English Wikipedia should be written to be legible to native English speakers. This is better for everyone: native English speake…

For the record, I agree with your criticism. I did generalize my experience without enough justification.

It was a 30 second runaway comment and the latter part clearly doesn't hold up against scrutiny.

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

#684

Post by kazinator »

crazydoggers wrote: post #666
kazinator wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

> " ...the froznitch comprises the gronfuzzle ..." > What we have lost by comprise being commutative is the ability to make that inference. I think you’ve realized the value of trying to maintain precise meanings of words. In fact, technically, we haven’t really lost the ability to make that inference, since that’s what the word means. That’s why its definition is “be made up of”. The froznitch is made up of gronfuzz…

> that’s what the word means

That's what the word means (that's all it means) if the calendar reads 1750. If that's the English you want you should want all of it: no cherry picking of single word reverts.

> Adding “of” to the end shouldn’t change anything

Then feel free to pretend that one definition of comprise is "to be made" rather than "to be made of".

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

#685

Post by readthenotes1 »

kstrauser wrote: post #77
readthenotes1 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your peeve is comprised of people using a word to mean two opposite meanings, as if to make up for flammable and inflammable meaning the same?

Don’t make me throw my Strunk & White at you.

Is that still a thing?

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

#686

Post by Aerbil313 »

bsaul wrote: post #680
Aerbil313 wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Prescriptivism resists language evolution. Decriptivism allows the language to evolve as fast as people wish to evolve it. This is nonsense. Do you really believe language is subject to intentional human control? (Of course if a dictator comes and kills half a million people for things including changing language like it happened in my country, then it is, but this is a very rare exception.)

langage is taught in schools and by parents. It is 100% controlled by humans. you can't learn it by yourself as a baby.

I didn’t mean that. I meant evolution of language is not subject to any person’s desires or will.

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

#687

Post by OJFord »

junon wrote: post #677
OJFord wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .)

... They said, spending too much effort to try to insult me by going through my comment history and still missing the point of the original comment.

I didn't even look at your profile, if you've said 'real quick' or something similar before (or whatever it is you think I gleaned from there) it's a coincidence.

And in fact why would I have? I was replying to something someone else said in reply to you, not even related really except via parent to your GP comment.

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

#689

Post by yellowapple »

justin66 wrote: post #620
yellowapple wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect, I am a native English speaker and I agree with the GP. I wouldn't go as far as the Wikipedian in question (I surely have far better uses of my time than to make many tens of thousands of edits over a trivial nitpick), but the end result does read better and I'd have a hard time justifying a reversion of such an edit. Also, considering that plenty of non-native English speakers read the English W…

> but the end result does read better What tiny fraction of one percent of the edits would you estimate you have actually read?

Enough to extrapolate with a reasonable level of confidence.

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

#690

Post by manuel_w »

rvnx wrote: post #174
rossriley wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correct way to do this in most style guides is to add (sic) to the quote which means you're aware of the incorrect use but are quoting directly.

It's not incorrect use. If you add "sic" you try to make the speaker sound like an idiot and that you have the right way. Plus, "sic" pushes the attention of the reader toward this specific word, when it may be a waste of time of the reader. The personal phobia for certain words (of the writer) shouldn't impact the reader.

I disagree.

I'm quite happy to see the (sic) in quotes. Without, I'd read the quote and stumble over the incorrect would and would think "wait, did they really say that or has it been transcribed wrongly?". With the (sic), I'm that matter doesn't even arise. I understand it is the exact phrasing of the author and go on. Also, I know whom to attribute this to. Did I read the exact transcription of an hazily author, or a hazy transcription of an exact author?

Post reply on HN