Hello, Ovavourakis! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horsesIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ovavourakis! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host)
The fact that it's a commonly-accepted and commonly-understood usage. Which, quite frankly, is the *only* thing that matters in determining what is or is not "correct" in a living, actually-used language. Barry Town People (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Barry Town People:I'm not sure about that. Just because something is "commonly understood" doesn't make it right. Consider me suddenly shouting "Food! Me starve. I needing help. Food!". I'd get my point across, sure, and that point would be commonly understood by a native speaker in the exact same way "comprised of" would be commonly understood - if one says that, he means this. That doesn't make this usage proper English. Now I get your point about languages evolving when the majority of people all start making the same "mistake" and usage changes - which obviously isn't the case in my example above, few talk like that. But there's an important point to keep in mind, when changing language: consistency. English isn't the most consistent language in the world, mostly due to all the non-native speakers that had to learn it over the centuries, and empires, and international trade etc... That does not mean inconsistency is a good thing. Now "comprised of" conflicts with the definition of "comprise". Accepting that the former means what it commonly does, it is imperative that we expand the definition of the latter to allow for its usage as a synonym of compose. Otherwise we are inconsistent. Where's the problem with that? Language has to be fundamentally consistent to some degree, because it's an agreed upon system to get our points across - if you use an expression I do not know (excluding idioms) then I have to be able to get to the meaning of it eventually by logically analyzing what words you used (assuming I know those). Which in this case, I couldn't. And in any case, adding inconsistency is adding complexity, due to all the stuff not falling into the language's logical structure. You start having to list all the exceptions to the rule; the lack of which [exceptions] is one of the major reasons English has become so dominant in the first place - you don't want to add them in now, surely? Assuming we therefore now expand the definition of "comprise" accordingly, we face the problem of actually opposing definitions: one being to compose, the other to include. That is even worse, so let's just not do that, shall we? Thus "comprised of" must stay incorrect. I realize no amount of arguing on a theoretical level will stop people from continuing to use it, but using the alternatives has the practical benefit of definiteness. You might be able to explain to me that "Oh, yes, only in the context of this one expression does "comprise" mean something else.", but if we allow that, we have to allow a bunch of other changes leading to the problems outlined above. The immediacy of understanding, something you'd think the people actually speaking the language would value, is lost when I first have to go through five possible definitions, all of which would fit into the context in one way or another (one reason why Latin is so hard to learn for us), even more so if some of them are conflicting. "Comprised of" is not the problem, but if we allow it "comprise" becomes the problem, so we have to nip this inconsistency in the bud, so to speak. Summary: If we allow "comprised of" we have to allow "comprise" with a different meaning, hindering communication through the addition of conflicting definitions. If we choose to be inconsistent and just not change the definition of "comprise" we hinder communication through the addition of exceptions to its current definition. Thus it is much better not to accept "comprised of" at all. In the end it's all about aiding communication, by keeping things definite - and thus simple. I'm sorry this is so long. :) Ovavourakis (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, your request has been declined. The reason is shown on the main FFU page. The request will be archived shortly; if you cannot find it on that page, it will probably be at this month's archive. Regards, TheMesquitobuzz 03:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)