> The similarity is uncanny.
Is it extremely disrespectful to point out that your previous comment is defending the position that "to comprise is to compose"?
Second, the phrase is "comprised of," not "to comprise."
Finally, I'd also like to point out that the editor and all people in this thread clearly knows how the phrase is used today. What's the point of arguing about the correctness of a phrase when it does a perfect job of conveying meaning?
See this is what I mean when I say that your position is closer to the Newspeak ethos. What's wrong with ungood, after all? It does a perfect job of conveying meaning.
The Newspeak language eradicates words on the basis that they're redundant. The Wikipedia editor went to eradicate a phrase using the same justification. There's an obvious parallel here.
> It does a perfect job of conveying meaning.
This is a fact that holds true regardless of one's opinion. Yet, you're fallaciously framing this as an opinion to make it look like Oceania and I hold the same opinion.
When it comes to my actual opinion, I favor languages spoken as is. Newspeak, on the others hand, is an artificially restricted one. The false equivalence you made between these two conflicting positions can only be explained as doublethink.
I sure haven't stated "my position" in any of my previous comments. But assuming it refers to common english, I'm reminded of another "1984" concept: doublethink.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Compare this:
> common english is Newspeak
with this:
> War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength
The similarity is uncanny.
> A better source might be
... the actual book being discussed?
> https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
Exactly which part of Orwell's opinion did you find relevant to this discussion and how does it relate to yours? This is missing from your comment.
> which is essentially what you and others argue for,
Please don't put words in my or anyone else's mouth to make your point. It's extremely disrespectful.