5 ms·

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 y

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 learned from Gödel, language is complete, but not consistent. Unlike math. So trying to argue about “comprise” using a more consistent logical framework of A, B, C, commutation, etc. is already a losing battle. I could argue for a long time, having been both an English major, and a software engineer but the short of it is that words are tools. Don’t use a hammer for a screw. Sure you’re allowed to, and the language can evolve into everyone using a hammer on a screw, but the language losses something in the process. There have always been, and always will be editors and people like the Wikipedia editor who help proscribe the usage of words to convey the correct and precise meaning to as many people as possible. The goal is to allow as many people as possible to have as precise an understanding of what is being communicated, with as much precision as is possible for something the must be complete but can’t be consistent. An example can be seen, even on this very page, of English learners, non-native speakers, thankful for what some call “pedantry”, so they can understand what is being said. Without that, language can often become siloed, with the evolution of pidgins, and creoles etc, with the consequence that fewer and fewer people understand each other. Imagine your grandmother trying to read and understand half of what is written on Twitter and TikTok. For content that matters, and that includes Wikipedia, and published texts, editors who work for those publishers are the invisible people behind the scenes helping us all understand eachother. You can scoff at “pseudo-intellectual twits”, but people often fail to realize that the world is often a better, richer place for intellectuals. The people who spend time on things most people find pedantic, often end up inventing things like transistors, understanding quantum physics, etc. Software engineers often appreciate those types of results, but ignore or sweep away the results that lead to richer arts, language and cultural heritage.

kazinator 3y ago
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!"
- crazydoggers 3y ago
  > " ...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 gronfuzzle. Adding “of” to the end shouldn’t change anything. The usage of the word in reverse is the problem, and has been maintained as incorrect for hundreds of years. “Nine players comprise the team” is not grammatically correct. (Although as is noted, this has changed somewhat recently, and editors would argue not for the better) So in fact this proves the point that editors making such changes are what help maintain the value of precise language. I’ll just leave you with the following, since arguing definitions of words is always a losing battle, since language is too fluid. It’s not wrong, nor “bad” to wish words change or be used in certain ways, especially when common usage of a word can cause confusion or be more ambiguous. There’s always a place for editors, those seeking to make the written word more precise and clear, and even if you disagree with this one, or others, I would simply say that the assessment that editors are pointless, or “twits” is unfair and dismissive of their value. > “Drivel spoken by poor colored folk is destroying our language!" This statement comes across as virtue signaling. Pidgins, creoles etc are spoken by people of all skin colors and statuses. They are also amazing parts of cultural history. But there’s a difference between speaking with your family, fellows, community etc, and publishing written text for mass consumption. I don’t think anyone would argue that we’d be better off with encyclopedia’s being published in pidgin, leet speak etc etc.
  - kazinator 3y ago
    > 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".

kazinator 3y ago

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!"

crazydoggers 3y ago
> " ...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 gronfuzzle. Adding “of” to the end shouldn’t change anything. The usage of the word in reverse is the problem, and has been maintained as incorrect for hundreds of years. “Nine players comprise the team” is not grammatically correct. (Although as is noted, this has changed somewhat recently, and editors would argue not for the better) So in fact this proves the point that editors making such changes are what help maintain the value of precise language. I’ll just leave you with the following, since arguing definitions of words is always a losing battle, since language is too fluid. It’s not wrong, nor “bad” to wish words change or be used in certain ways, especially when common usage of a word can cause confusion or be more ambiguous. There’s always a place for editors, those seeking to make the written word more precise and clear, and even if you disagree with this one, or others, I would simply say that the assessment that editors are pointless, or “twits” is unfair and dismissive of their value. > “Drivel spoken by poor colored folk is destroying our language!" This statement comes across as virtue signaling. Pidgins, creoles etc are spoken by people of all skin colors and statuses. They are also amazing parts of cultural history. But there’s a difference between speaking with your family, fellows, community etc, and publishing written text for mass consumption. I don’t think anyone would argue that we’d be better off with encyclopedia’s being published in pidgin, leet speak etc etc.
- kazinator 3y ago
  > 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".