14 ms·
I love these one-person crusades against present reality. Words mean whatever a critical mass of people want them to mean. For example, the usage of the present
by cogitoergofutuo 3y ago
I love these one-person crusades against present reality. Words mean whatever a critical mass of people want them to mean. For example, the usage of the present tense here:
"Composed of" and "consists of" are better alternatives.
is incorrect. It should read:
Composed of" and "consists of" were better alternatives.
This thread is literally a clout ATM machine for a group comprised of pedants.
- Aeolun 3y agoI think the author is talking about a general scenario, not one of their past edits.
- dixie_land 3y agoI could agree more! Irregardless of what words actually mean we should just use whatever we want.
- mrexroad 3y agoInconceivable!
- bloppe 3y agoThe problem here is the ambiguity. Someone who uses the original meaning of comprise will interpret a sentence in the opposite way of someone using the new. "America comprises many states and territories" -> "Many states and territories are comprised of America" have the same meaning with the original definition. With the new definition, you'd have to invert both sentences. This is called a Janus word because it can be it's own antonym. There are other Janus words, like "table" as in "to table a topic for discussion", which means opposite things in American vs British English. The author touches on the fact that that's a regional distinction, but there is no such regional distinction for comprise. Therefore it makes sense for a website like Wikipedia to pick a single form, and the original is still more widespread than the new.
- blipvert 3y agoQuite
- lolinder 3y ago> the original is still more widespread than the new. I'm not so sure. Google ngrams has the new usage recently taking over in published books[0], and those usually learn conservative in their usage. [0] 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... (this works because ~no one uses comprise in the passive voice in the old meaning)
- smcl 3y agoAnd use of the suggested (and more correct) alternative "composed of" is more common than both of them combined: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22comprised+of%22%2C%22comprises%22%2C%22composed+of%22&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22comprised+o...
- dorfsmay 3y agoBiweekly is not its own antonym but it means two completely different things (every other week and twice a week) which for me as rendered it useless since you cannot know which meaning is intended. The best way to deal with this issue is to have body that slows down language changes, then normalise them based on logic and history, something like the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Spanish_Academy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Spanish_Academy.
- FR10 3y agoYeah the RAE is super useful to end debates on what a word means, thats it. I see no issues with language not "evolving enough". Spanish written/talked a century ago is different than what it's spoken presently, even if the words mean the same.
- bluepod4 3y agoThe present tense is fine in this case. The author means “composed of” and “consists of” are better phrases to use in general (i.e. according to style guides), not were better phrases exclusively for use on his Wikipedia project. We know this for sure because in the “Quotations” section the author says that he changes “comprised of” to “composed of” or “comprises” in quotations under certain circumstances. He is not wary of using “comprises”. The author also indicates that this work is still ongoing and meant to be evergreen.
- lolinder 3y agoI'm pretty sure it's a joke: those were better alternatives but they're equally valid now and it's time for the author to let the language change and move on.
- bluepod4 3y agoYeah, I see that now. Instead of italicizing the word “were” to place emphasis like you did, OP italicized most of the quote and not the word that needed emphasis. Ha. For this reason, I thought his “ATM clout” statement meant the opposite of what he meant.
- dionidium 3y agoThis thread is proof of the opposite, in fact. Since neither "composed of" nor "consists of" generate 300+ comment Hacker News threads, they are plainly better.
- itslennysfault 3y agoWell.... tell that to the AP style guide I guess.
- cogitoergofutuo 3y agoSurely their oversight will lead to a decision about which usage to sanction. You can submit your thoughts here! https://www.apstylebook.com/ask_the_editors#submit_tab https://www.apstylebook.com/ask_the_editors#submit_tab
- spencerchubb 3y ago> Words mean whatever a critical mass of people want them to mean. Yes this is true for natural language, but we don't want Wikipedia to have natural language. We want Wikipedia to have clear and concise language.
- KeplerBoy 3y agoThere'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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise
- SilasX 3y agoWhether 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.
- starkparker 3y ago> This thread is literally a clout ATM machine for a group comprised of pedants. That's most high-level Wikipedia editors in a nutshell.
- Grustaf 3y agoWhile you could certainly argue that “words mean what people think they mean”, that is not a reason to use words in ways that are CURRENTLY considered wrong, especially not in a lexicon. If you want to change the meaning of a word, that’s fine, and maybe in a few decades you will succeed, but until you get enough people on board you will only cause confusion.
- hoosieree 3y agoSurely you mean AT Machine?
- cogitoergofutuo 3y agoI’m a big fan of AT-ATs but I like AT-STs as well.
- dataflow 3y agoWhat I don't quite understand is the resistance. It's a fact that some people (and I mean readers, not the editors) don't like, understand, and/or accept the new meaning of this word, whether we like it or not. Whereas everyone should be agreeing that the alternatives are fine. So if you have an alternative everyone is fine with... it seems like a no-brainer to use it? When you have something that everyone is happy with, why insist on an alternative that some people hate?
- woooooo 3y agoThere are a billion of us speaking the language. It's a little presumptuous to tell a billion people what to do and there should probably be some amount of default resistance.
- dataflow 3y agoNobody is telling a billion people what to do though? We're just talking about what word to use in an article edited by a handful of people. The billion people can keep using whatever words they want.
- amelius 3y agoThe billion people prefer to read the language that they also use, in all its glory. What you're defending is a bit like replacing all female TV hosts by men and then saying that nobody surely is against men on TV.
- dataflow 3y agoDo you really believe the loss society would suffer from editing "comprised of" in Wikipedia articles is actually comparable to what it would suffer if they discriminated against half the population on TV?
- cogitoergofutuo 3y agoI can only speak for myself, but the actual phrase “comprised of” is the least interesting thing to discuss when it comes to this topic. I am fascinated by a single person taking up the cause of “correcting” the language of others based off of their personal linguistic aesthetic preference. I don’t see many people saying “I often have to stop at the words ‘comprised of’ and reevaluate the meaning of the sentence that I’m reading lest I completely misunderstand it.” This isn’t actually in practical service of clarity, it’s an exercise in preserving a sense of meaningful posterity — a deeply personal and sentimental endeavor despite what “reasons” one is able to elucidate.
- cratermoon 3y ago"ATM machine"? RAS syndrome.
- cogitoergofutuo 3y agoLol out loud!
- dllthomas 3y agoI literally lolled.
- jzb 3y agoAllow me to quote you back to you. "It’s also not really serverless to begin with, because at the end of the day code is being executed on a physical device that many of us might call a “server” [1] A critical mass of people have adopted the term serverless. Therefore, the term means whatever they want it to mean, right? No sense in swimming against the tide here, correct? Yes, words mean what people want them to mean if we're willing to shrug our shoulders and accept the new usage or terminology. That doesn't mean it's never correct to fight against sloppy or non-standard usage in the hopes that it won't be considered standard. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35811741&p=2#35812073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35811741&p=2#35812073
- SilasX 3y agoSemi-related, it always bothered me that we use the term "wireless" for something that still has wires (just not between the endpoints). Though I don't object, or have a better alternative, and I get the logic of calling it wireless.
- everybodyknows 3y agoWhat is a "clout ATM machine"?
- cogitoergofutuo 3y agoAn ATM machine that dispenses clout.
- nirvdrum 3y agoIf words don't matter, then ignore the edits. People tend to copy what they see. If they see it written with the original definition, maybe that's what the hivemind will adopt. I don't see a problem with that and I don't see the point in attacking people that care. I'm sure you have things in your life you care about.
- gnulinux 3y agoNo, the point is words do matter, and they mean what people think they mean. Not people from 100 years ago from a prestige university who wrote a dictionary. Languages are fluid, they change and when they do change the present reality is the way the language is spoken.
- nirvdrum 3y agoObviously there's no universal agreement on which phrase is correct. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having a discussion. I don't know how many people we're even talking about. I'm certain the group that uses "comprises" instead of "comprised of" is not entirely "people from 100 years ago from prestige university who wrote a dictionary." I understand languages change, which I think is an argument for the edits. If the language pivoted one way, pivoting back is just as valid a change as any other. "Comprised of" and similar phrasing doesn't come out of the ether. They build in popularity as they propagate through writing. There's a big snowball effect. I suspect going forward, you'll see "comprises" or "consists of" because people just copy what they see. Most don't have a strongly formed opinion about which phrase is better. Personally, I view writing as a craft or skill like any other. Writing is different than speech and always has been. There's a huge qualitative difference in text that has been edited and text that is streamed out of someone's head. The former is almost always clearer to understand. Consequently, if someone points out a grammatical issue to me I say "Oh, TIL, thanks for letting me know" and then I adapt and go on with my life. My bias is to the established norm, not arguing that I'm riding the wave of a linguistic revolution. If I have an open question on something, I'll consult an established resource, just like I would in any other field or craft. I think the problem is people get embarrassed when they're told they're using the language incorrectly. I get it. I've been there. It's true that English does not have a governing body like French, but I don't see that as a compelling justification for redefining terms or just arguing that nothing can ever be wrong.
- gadders 3y ago[flagged]
- karaterobot 3y agoHow do we decide whether someone is using a word incorrectly, or if we should update our present reality? Another question: are there places where accuracy and precision are more important than others? Would an encyclopedia be one of those places? I'll reveal my cards here: I believe so.
- cogitoergofutuo 3y agoI am happy that you brought up accuracy _and_ precision! Somewhat humorously I think a good chunk of the disagreements here come from people treating those concepts interchangeably. Attempts to apply mathematical reasoning to language and interpretation are doomed to fall into similar traps.
- robertoandred 3y agoI'm enjoying the argument that the meaning of words in an encyclopedia should be subjective.