9 ms·
"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
by denton-scratch 4y ago
"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" that sounds more erudite, or something. I think to utilize something is to take something that is useless, and turn it into something useful. That's not the same as using the thing.
- mmcnl 4y agoWhat is "WP"?
- js2 4y agoWikipedia
- coding123 4y agoWord perfect or word press
- ddoolin 4y agoWordPress. Wickedly Pernicious.
- moritzwarhier 4y agoAAC. 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:
- denton-scratch 4y agoWP 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.
- moritzwarhier 4y agoThanks for the clarification. I wouldn't argue against abbreviations per se. Was just in the mood for a whimsy post. 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.
- kaetemi 4y agoWifi Port.
- kaetemi 4y agoIt's the port in your Wifi over Data box, that hackers can connect their wireless Wifi cable extender to, so you can consummate all the exoteric phonography that the information highway is compromised of.
- bombcar 4y agoComprises is not comprised.
- fauxpause_ 4y agoThis post is comprised good points.
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago> This post is comprised good points. This post comprises good points. This post consists of good points.
- gwd 4y ago> This post comprises good points. As a native speaker, I would say: * Good points comprise this post. * This post is comprised of good points. I'm sure there's an interesting historical linguistics reason for the way things developed, but "comprised of" is well-established usage.
- jon-wood 4y agoReally? I’d say “this post makes many good points”, “is comprised of” isn’t exactly in common usage these days.
- smcl 4y agoThe post isn't making anything, it's just sitting there being read by us. The author, however, made some good points in the post. Additionally the verb to comprise isn't suitable here either, so it's going to sound awkward no matter how you try to rearrange the sentence. The "composed of" or "consists of" alternatives mentioned in the original page aren't really a good fit either. There's no need to complicate things: this post contains many good points. In truth if someone said or wrote any of these sentences, I wouldn't mind whatsoever. I know exactly what they meant and that's what matters. However since we're having a bit of fun, I figured I'd weigh in :)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Izkata 4y ago
- naniwaduni 4y agoThe (expected) face-value meaning of "comprised of" is usually best substituted by "part of": All Gaul comprises three parts -> Three parts are comprised of all Gaul.
- jfk13 4y ago> All Gaul comprises three parts -> Three parts are comprised of all Gaul. No, that doesn't work. You could, however, say "Gaul is comprised of three parts". https://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/cw-comprise-comprised-of.php https://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/cw-comprise-comprised...
- naniwaduni 4y agoNo, I know, I'm saying that the expected, compositional, interpretation of the phrase (a) exists and (b) is just a slightly archaic passive, and it would still be perfectly cromulent, just backward.
- jameshart 4y agoPassive voice is formed with the word ‘by’ not ‘of’. The verb ‘to comprise of’ can exist and have a different meaning that ‘to comprise’ or its passive ‘to be comprised by’ - and have a different passive (to be comprised of). Like, the verbs ‘smell’ and ‘smell of’ do not mean the same thing, nor is one the passive of the other. - I smell roses - roses are smelled by me - I smell of roses - roses are smelled of by me Four very different meanings.
- Xorakios 4y agoGaul should be ruled by Rome. There are no three parts.
- vajrabum 4y agoInteresting. If you look at Wiktionary or if you prefer, your favorite etymology dictionary, the word utilize is descended from Latin from the French word utiliser, via the Italian utilizzare which got it from the Latin utilis. All of those words mean to use. I'd be the last person to say you're wrong. Matters of grammar and usage ultimately boil down to does it feel right and current usage. As is usual with these things, other people have different feelings about it. That's what dialect is I think.
- Xorakios 4y agoHarrumph, but you are certainly not the last person to type that you are incorrect and it all boils down to the dialectic.
- denton-scratch 4y ago"Dialectic" means something different from "dialect". I have no idea which you meant.
- denton-scratch 4y agoNevertheless, "use" is a better word. Using longer words, when shorter words are available that mean the same thing, comes across as pompous or pretentious.
- lipoid_ecole 4y agoSometimes, the longer word has a connotation that more clearly expresses our intention. Sometimes we want Hemmingway and other times we want Faulkner.
- ghaff 4y agoThey're not quite the same thing. One example I see online is using "utilize" to suggest that something is used beyond its intended purpose. (I'm not sure I even completely buy that.) But, in general, "use" is shorter and sounds less jargony.
- 4y ago
- e12e 4y agoTruly? Webster's lists in part: > 2: Compose, constitute > //… a misconception as to what comprises a literary generation. — William Styron > //… about 8 percent of our military forces are comprised of women. — Jimmy Carter
- devnullbrain 4y agoI feel the same way about s/use/utilize. It's like Joey on Friends using a thesaurus. See also 'Due to the fact' -> 'because'
- ape4 4y agoI agree with you "at this point in time" (aka "now")
- kitallis 4y agoThis reminds me of the David Foster Wallace video on "puff words" or genteelisms - https://youtu.be/52kiS1oV2k0 https://youtu.be/52kiS1oV2k0
- dheera 4y agoI think people mean to say "composed of" but then they change it to "comprised" because it sounds more high-class and elite.
- lolinder 4y ago> It's not just that some people dislike it; it's simply wrong. Language changes. Words frequently develop the opposite meaning of what they originally had—opposites seem to be semantically closer and more prone to switching than completely unrelated words. When a word changes meaning, it is not wrong to use it in the new way, and at some point it even becomes wrong to use it in the original way: if you used "terrific" to mean "inspiring terror", you would confuse most of your audience! In this particular case what I find funny is that the author acknowledges that this semantic shift has been going on for hundreds of years and all that was holding it back was the language purists. According to their own account, when the purists fell out of favor in the 60s it was like a dam burst. The "incorrect" usage recently overtook the correct one in published books: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22comprised+of%22%2C%22comprises%22&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22comprised+o...
- groestl 4y ago> Words frequently develop the opposite meaning of what they originally had My favourite examples, because it also emphasizes some kind of ambiguity in the concept itself, are the english words "host", "hosting", "hospitality", "hostile", "hostage", with roots in the latin "hostis" (enemy), and the indo-european "ghosti" (guest, stranger).
- sunir 4y agoWell, that's not much of a value argument, just a statement of reality that entropy exists and everything becomes crap over time without maintenance. Gardens also grow. But if you don't maintain your garden, they ahem literally become weeded, cough figuratively speaking.
- lolinder 4y agoYou're welcome to tend your own garden, but until we figure out how to have fair elections I would invite all self-appointed language stewards to leave other people's plots alone. Languages belong to their speakers, and the only way we have to vote at the moment is with our idiolect.
- DANmode 4y agoThis just made me realize the trend of using "myriad" in HN comments died out.
- captainmuon 4y agoI would say "comprises" in the active voice means "encompasses". X not just contains Y, but X is made up of Y. When X comprises Y, then Y constitutes X. Or to use passive: X is made up of Y, X is comprised of Y. Y are encompassed by X. "Is comprised of" is a totally cromulent use and I would claim it is more logical and more easily understood than the "X comprises Y" usage.
- throwawaymaths 4y agoNot entirely. Consists of (without a modifier like "in part") usually strongly implies completeness or functional completeness ("active ingredients") in the subsequent list, comprises is more free to be incomplete.
- crazygringo 4y ago> it's simply wrong That makes as much sense as saying that "ne... pas" in French is a double negative and therefore "simply wrong" to use as a straight negative. No -- language isn't math, and English and other languages are chock-full of inconsistencies and seemingly "illogical" things. Language ultimately rests on convention, on real life usage -- not logic. Arguing that a common usage is illogical is fighting against the tide.
- denton-scratch 4y ago"ne... pas" in French is nothing more nor less than the correct way of formulating certain kinds of statements containing a negative. If you left out either of "ne" or "pas" in such a construction, people would either laugh, or assume you were some kind of primitive language generator. It's absurd that English speakers are so tolerant of incorrect usage. It's partly the pedagogic principle that "All shall have prizes" at the school sports day; but it's significant that if you try to correct incorrect usage, you get referred to literary figures such as poets and playwrights that used some term incorrectly, as if people like (e.g.) Pepys are authorities.
- PoignardAzur 4y ago"Laugh or assume you're a robot" isn't quite right, though; skipping the "ne" is common in informal contexts.
- JackFr 4y agoThere was a fascinating article in the Economist many years ago about the worldwide predominance of English. (This was pre ubiquitous internet.) The reasons given were 1) British colonialism 2) Post WWII American hegemony 3) No one cares if you speak it poorly.
- monetus 4y agoEver read pidgin? Mutually intelligible, really neat. https://www.bbc.com/pidgin https://www.bbc.com/pidgin
- 4y ago
- Nifty3929 4y ago>> Whenever I come across the word "utilize" in WP, I change it to "use" Thank you so much for this. I do it to. Same with "incentivize" -> "incent stop the madness!
- gnulinux 4y agoI 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. find predictive models of this data). Gathering data, then claiming the data is wrong is epistemologically unfounded. Languages simply are the way they are. This would be like gathering data from Hubble and then deciding photons are wrong because their behavior mismatch with Newtonian laws.
- spacephysics 4y agoFully agree, same can be said about ever young generation’s slang. What “bet”, “cap”, “rizz” and others used by the younger population isn’t wrong, it’s different and an evolution of certain terms. I don’t study linguistics, but I can be sure there are terms we use today and take as normal-speak that were once the center of a younger generation’s slang vernacular. An extreme example is the word retard. Years ago in normal speak you could say “After the EPA enacted stricter emissions regulations, this initially retarded the development of sports cars until new technology was implemented” other obvious examples are the medical angle of the word. Today, you could use the word in such a way, it’s technically correct, however you’ll most likely get some odd looks. Most uses of it today are either in specific comedic circles, or derogatorily towards another person/thing/animal etc
- JW_00000 4y agoOK, 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 encyclopedia, I'd prefer it to avoid this ambiguous word.
- bbor 4y ago
- make3 4y agocomprises means whatever people use it for
- SPBS 4y agoInteresting tidbits to know about the English language but I'm not about to correct someone for that.
- spondylosaurus 4y agoThank you for taking a stand against the ever-encroaching scourge of "utilize." That one bugs me almost as much as "in order to" does. (Just say "to"!)
- leephillips 4y ago“in order to” and “to” have different shades of meaning, and sometimes different meanings entirely (although I guess you’re right that most instances of the first can be replaced by the second). Think about “I walk to work.” and “I walk in order to work.” Close, but not quite the same.
- UncleMeat 4y ago"Yeah no" and "No yeah" mean clear and different things, despite being superficially total nonsense. I've probably heard "comprised of" thousands of times in my life to mean "made of." What's wrong with phrases having meaning?
- wkjagt 4y agoWhenever I read "yeah no", it reminds me of HN comments from people disagreeing with someone. I have no idea when "no yeah" would be used though.
- panxyh 4y agoYeah no, they are not total nonsense.
- UncleMeat 4y agoThat's my point. If you just look at phrases as meaning the sum of their words then this phrase makes no sense. But it is a phrase that has an understood meaning.
- npteljes 4y agoI agree with you. Frankly, utilize instead of use just sounds finicking. As an engineer, I'd use it in a corporate powerpoint that I make to impress management. These kind of things have no place in Wikipedia.
- alch- 4y ago> I'd use it I think you mean "leverage".
- anigbrowl 4y agoWhenever I come across the word "utilize" in WP, I change it to "use" Not all heroes wear capes. I also chafe at that misuse so I'm glad to read of your efforts.
- emberfiend 4y agoNative, high-level speaker here: "comprised of" is not wrong. You're entitled to your tastes of course, but you'll have a richer understanding of the world if you include the shades in your model.
- tvararu 4y agoThe Romanian for "to use" is "a utiliza." Bilingual speakers might find "utilize" more familiar and choose it as such. The same might be true of other languages, and a possible explanation for its popularity. In every other respect, "use" is indeed better.
- edanm 4y ago> 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".
- clarkdale 4y agoHey there, when you are quoting and ending a sentence, you should place the period inside the quotes. I understand if you are new to writing in the English language.