1 Finish Profile

Grammatical quibble

Locked

Just a little pet peeve of mine is use of the word “comprise”, which means to contain, encompassed, or be composed of. Most people interchange “comprise” with “compose” when they are actually opposites.
In “Personal Success”, you say: “had an input-output system comprised of only switches and blinking lights”. This is an incorrect usage – you could say “composed of only switches and blinking lights” or you could say “comprising only switches and blinking lights”.
Bad trivia geek!

Topic

Get ready to be overruled by the proletariat

In reply to Grammatical quibble

This usage is about one dictionary edition away from being accepted. See below. On the positive side, I can’t think of a situation in which this now-arguably incorrect syntax would cause a misunderstanding. In a language like English that has no “academy” to pass judgment on its evolution, clear understanding is really the only criterion matter in the long run. But even the most sensible ruling can be overruled by popular vote. Cf. “buffalo” for “bison,” “Wisteria” for “Wistaria,” “flammable” for “inflammable,” and the now-acceptable second-choice pronunciations of “often” and “arctic.” (The T and the first C, respectively, have been silent since each word’s first appearance in our language. They were erroneously inserted by lexicographers trying to show off their modest learning, and are now erroneously pronounced by announcers trying to show off their own modest learning.)

From Merriam-Webster.com

comprise:
1: to include….
2: to be made up of….
3: to compose, constitute….

Usage: Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up.

The old ?comprise? controversy

In reply to Get ready to be overruled by the proletariat

I first read about the ?comprise? controversy in ?The Writer?s Art? (James Kilpatrick) when it came out in 1984; the same year I got my first professional editing job. The distinction made by mjmarcus in his ?grammatical quibble? was embraced by most editors at that time. The American Heritage Dictionary (which I haven?t used in years) at that time wholeheartedly supported the distinction, prescribing only usage such as ?the Union comprises fifty states.? Nowadays most editors are accepting the usage allowed by Webster?s, which DC_GUY points out in posting ?Get ready to be overruled by the proletariat.? As a professional editor, you have to objectively, unemotionally, employ usage most supported by most style manuals and dictionaries. But luckily, some big ones such as AP Stylebook still insist on the old ?comprise? usage??the whole comprises the parts? (at least in the last AP edition I read). When there is a controversy around a word (and the ?comprise? controversy is one of the oldest and biggest ones), most careful editors will avoid the controversial usage, since it has potential to look unprofessional. So I would still avoid using phrases like ?the Union is comprised of fifty states.? To most editors, that still looks sloppy. But it may be that in five or ten years it will look fine, and no one will remember the old ?comprise? controversy.

–06May2005–addendum for those truly obsessed with such usage issues: The “editor’s bible”–the Chicago Manual of Style, which is revised and published once every 12 years or so–entered the fray in its latest edition (2003). It strongly supports the integrity of “comprise” exclusively in its traditional sense: “the whole comprises the parts,” or “the union comprises fifty states.” Chicago states that editors who use the phrase “comprised of” risk losing credibility. It appears all the major style manuals are now warning against the ill-conceived “comprised of.”

See Merriam-Webster.

In reply to The old ?comprise? controversy

See

[v]http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=150882&messageID=1764335[/v]

Look at your definition again

In reply to Grammatical quibble

If Composed is in the definition of a word, it CAN be used in place of the word.

Can you say “oops”?

Yes, but Style Manuals complicate the issue

In reply to Look at your definition again

You’re right, dictionaries say “compose” is a def. of “comprise.” But all the major style manuals that editors are supposed to use say compose is the opposite of comprise, in the sense that “the parts compose the whole” but “the whole comprises the parts.” If you’re not an editor, it’s obvious–just go with the dictionary. If you’re an editor, you have to consider credibility, which comes from adherence to the “accepted” major style manuals. So it’s a legitimate issue, but only in special fields and only among professional editors (IMO).

And in this case

In reply to Yes, but Style Manuals complicate the issue

we are NOT talking about publishing but tech which would continue to use the dictionary.

Never use a word in the definition if you don’t want it used as meaning the same.

If he would have quoted the style manuals he would have had a foot to stand on.

He didn’t so he don’t get the benifit of the doubt that he even KNOWS about them or that is the definition he would have used.

And no, English ain’t no not my specialty. (yes that was on purpose. I know grammer, even if my spelling is terrible.)

Well, then editors have to get their collective head out of their arse.

In reply to Yes, but Style Manuals complicate the issue

Their style manuals were written by editors, which means that they are citing themselves as their own authority.

This is a circular reasoning at its finest.

The final arbiter is not their manuals, but the dictionary.

yeah

In reply to Well, then editors have to get their collective head out of their arse.

what you said.

Thanks; I needed that.

In reply to yeah

It’s a low self esteem day.

Editors of “major style manuals”

In reply to Yes, but Style Manuals complicate the issue

YOou are also speaking of US English editors.

Such manuals would be torn apart in other countries.

As I first read this, I decided to call a good friend and ask his opinion.

He is one of the top copywriters around. Hired by fortune 100 companies worldwide for advertising copy, written policies and manual checks, public company investment porfolios etc. He has a wall of copy and ad awards and accomplishments from 40 years of written work including Microsoft, GoodYear, Yahoo, Maytag, Famous Players Theatres, MacMillan Bloedel and a hoard of movie credits from ‘RE-editing’ movie scripts with grammatical questions/issues. He is also called upon daily from contacts around the world, many government agencies for his grammar expertise when they are compiling documentation or writing speeches. That should work as some form of fair qualification, credibility, moreso than major style editors would have anyway.

He agrees, they are one and the same.

English is a lost art

In reply to Grammatical quibble

I think we shouls all go back to using Middle English. It’s far more simple. See….?

Whan that aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of march hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
Tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the ram his halve cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open ye
(so priketh hem nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,

Ah, but not everyone is a Chaucer

In reply to English is a lost art

The last time I read those lines, I was by the tomb of Saint Thomas Becket in Canterbury Cathedral. It was May, but close enough.

I almost got religion.

Almost.

Be careful!

In reply to Ah, but not everyone is a Chaucer

That religion stuff is spreading around everywhere, did you remember to wash your hands?

Dock his pay

In reply to Be careful!

he [i]thought[/i] something religious on company time.

More floggings! More I say!

HAHAHAHAHAHA

In reply to Dock his pay

And once again we manage to steer the conversation away from the main topic. I love it.
That religion stuff is crazy. Don’t get any on your shoes.

Well, just to make you feel better

In reply to Be careful!

I was waiting in the Cathedral out of the rain (pubs used to open at midday on Sunday) and I was asked to read it by some American tourists because they liked the sound of my accent.

But at least I recognised it!

I love Chaucer

In reply to Well, just to make you feel better

And I spent a great deal of time learning Middle English so that I could read his works as they were originally written.

The shame is

In reply to I love Chaucer

that so many people WON’T put half that much effort into reading ANYTHING, ANYWAY.

Continue to Never let good enough be good enough. Your already well down that road and it’s great!

yeah

In reply to The shame is

I don’t think I’ve done too bad in my 23 years. I have an unquenchable thirst for knowledge. I can speak a little in about 7 languages.

I am impressed

In reply to I love Chaucer

I know very few English people who would take the trouble to read Chaucer in the original form – alas, myself included.

We are not worthy!

Neil 😀

I’m a loser!

In reply to I am impressed

I have no life! I can’t help it. I just find reading much more enjoyable than dealing with people. Who needs friends when one has books? Though, I think it might explain why I am crazy.
hehehe hahaha (mumbles to self)

In NO WAY

In reply to I am impressed

have you EVER sounded even remotly like what I would concider a loser.

Sure, maybe not overly social, but that doesn’t make someone a loser.

Matter of fact your biggest flaw is living in the wrong state! Don’t worry, be happy. You sound just great!

One of my favorite quotes that I live by is “Don’t judge me by your standards”.

a generation thing

In reply to I am impressed

Actually I like the quote from The Bloodhound Gang “And I don’t give a d@mn if you don’t like me, ’cause I don’t like you ’cause you’re not like me.” It’s funny. I’m not really a social person. I prefer the company of a few good friends. And I was joking about being a loser. My imaginary friends say I’m super cool!

the voices

In reply to I am impressed

aren’t always as bad a thing as people make them out to be.

I too have three people in my life that I would trust with my life.

The rest are just aquantances or less.

They say when things get bad you find out who your friends are, I know who my friends are.

Value the people who like you for the geek that you are, not the person they think you could become.

My new favorite quote….

In reply to I am impressed

Saw this on a goth girl’s t-shirt the other day while standing in line at the drug-store to get my prenatal vitamins, (feeling like a loser cuz the only maternity clothes I can afford come in pastel cutesie colors)

[i]You laugh because I’m different. I laugh because you’re all the same.[/i]

yep

In reply to I am impressed

I only have two friends that I would trust with my life. One is a cousin of mine. The other is my best friend, though he’s been a bit of an arse lately.

Jessie

In reply to I am impressed

I have that quote in a frame hanging on my wall.

R U Goth?

In reply to I am impressed

ItGirli?

The thing that does make me laugh about the goths is to be individuals they all look the same?

Just say you like a look because following ANY trend is still being a follower of a group and not an individual.

Or am I just missing something?

I see lots of this as I go to the metal fests down in Detroit a lot. Usually just coming from work and I am the only one that looks like an individual! Lol!

When the norm becomes the exception…..

Goth:

In reply to I am impressed

I can’t speak for ITgirli, but AFAIC, the Goth black clothing is an outward expression of an inward “differentness” There are, after all, only so many colors in the rainbow. Black, being the colour (nod to our English friends) of mourning, is representative of the mourning a Goth feels for the rest of society and their seeming desire to keep the peace at whatever the cost to their humanity.

I’m not a Goth myself, but I can certainly understand their viewpoint.

We were at the zoo yesterday with the kids, and walking past a pen of wild birds, overheard a “yuppie-type” exclaim to his wife, “Have you ever wondered why they don’t just fly away?” My hubby bellowed, “Batter UP!” (meaning knock his F#$%@n block off!) which earned us several curious stares, but at least we both got a good chuckle. 😀

Not Goth

In reply to I am impressed

I’m truly more of a hippie born 30 years too late.

oh yeah

In reply to Grammatical quibble

and at least our dictionaries don’t have “snizzle” or “whizzle” or whatever the new snoop word is. (though this being America as it is, I’m sure it’s on the way)

There’s nothing worse. . .

In reply to oh yeah

.
…than to have someone whizzle at your snizzle, especially in a drizzle that’s about to fizzle, and it gets me all worked up into a tizzle until I sizzle. (But don’t gizzle at me for it.)

perhaps

In reply to There’s nothing worse. . .

IT is not your true path?

Some dictionaries do

In reply to oh yeah

http://www.urbandictionary.com has both snizzle and whizzle, fo shizzle. 🙂

That’s scary

In reply to Some dictionaries do

I weep for the future

Their are all kind of mistakes too be maid

In reply to Grammatical quibble

Their are all kinds of mistakes too be maid with the English Languare. If your going two fix it or knot it is another thing. Its good to notice it I guess, but I would’nt get to worked up about it. I sea mistakes all the time, but I handly ever make them myself. But what are you going to do? Its not nice to tell other people about they’re mistakes so I don’t do that to much. I guess our schools need to start doing a more through job when explaining about all it’s different nuisances.

Not nice?

In reply to Their are all kind of mistakes too be maid

I never CLAIMED to be nice, so I don’t have to be.

It is funny that the poster hasn’t shown his face in here since starting the thread. Really committed to the discussion it would seem.

Probable cause…

In reply to Not nice?

He probably hasn’t come back because, as usual, we managed to highjack his thread and turn it into something entirely different.

It started out nice enough

In reply to Probable cause…

it lasted at least 3 valid responses before it devolved into this…..

It was me!!!!!!!!!!!

In reply to It started out nice enough

I did it! And I’d do it again too! You can’t stop me! No one can! No one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You forgot

In reply to It was me!!!!!!!!!!!

the nervious laughter often associated with one in a padded room with the long sleaved jacket stapped on.

There coming to take me away ha ha
there coming to take me away ho ho
to the funny farm….

I know that multiple exclamation marks are the sign of a deranged mind

In reply to It was me!!!!!!!!!!!

but nineteen is just bragging!

Which explains how it is that …

In reply to I know that multiple exclamation marks are the sign of a deranged mind

you recognized her.

I’d have thought that by now you would have learned not to publicly tattle on yourself.

Are you sure that that was his face?

In reply to Not nice?

It looked like it may have been spanked a bit.

Lol

In reply to Their are all kind of mistakes too be maid

Too funny Max! 🙂 You are beginning to fit right in with the rest of us!

Dont yew mean

In reply to Their are all kind of mistakes too be maid

“…Its good too notice it eye guess, but I wooden git…”
🙂

Per Merriam-Webster, usage in article is NOT incorrect.

In reply to Grammatical quibble

In fact, M-W is puzzled as to why so many think it so.

See definition below.
==================================================

Main Entry: com?prise
Pronunciation: k&m-‘prIz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): com?prised; com?pris?ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French compris, past participle of comprendre, from Latin comprehendere
1 : to include especially within a particular scope
2 : to be made up of
3 : COMPOSE, CONSTITUTE
usage Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up.

And this is important why?

In reply to Grammatical quibble

What a waste of a thread if you ask me. How is this even IT related or has anything remotely to do with IT?

If we needed English lessons, we would get “Hooked on Phonics”

mama mia…what a shenanigan this is turning into

first of all

In reply to And this is important why?

It is in the Misc. category.
Second of all, if you don’t like it, don’t post.
Third of all that is the incorrect usage of shenanigan.

Lol

In reply to first of all

You stinker IT! 🙂

Yes, but, …

In reply to first of all

he did spell it correctly.

Not ANOTHER one!!

In reply to Yes, but, …

It seems that at least once a month, sopmeone rears thier ugly head and tries to dictate what TR discussion groups are supposed to be for.

It seems these are always newbies who think they are site moderators, most likely cast-offs from some other IT board where they were told to F.O and ended up here.

TR should have a full page window popup when you register,
“These forums include topics fo ALL interests, including NON IT issues as not everyone thinks IT is cool to discuss or even slightly fun at all. SOME of the members here have lives outside of the basement and choose to discuss off-topic issues such as politics, cars, music, concerts and other activities that basement dwellers are unaware of.

Should you run into one of these people, don’t be scared, try to realize that outside your mothers home, there is a real world. It contains trees, scenery, water, people from all kinds of countries and foods other than PopTarts and RedBull.

This may not interest you, and may even scare you to see such interest in things not IT related, but if you relax and read you will find there is a world outside, and with some work you may even start to develop converasational skills or even make FRIENDS (Friend: a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard. )

So don’t be scared, don’t lash out at a community, sit back and you may just learn something about reality outside of IT.

Perhaps we might just …

In reply to Not ANOTHER one!!

post a reply with a link that takes them to “The Evolution Lie”!

Not ANOTHER one!!

In reply to Not ANOTHER one!!

I agree with Oz_Media wholeheartedly — but I would word it slightly differently:
–TR should have a full page window popup when you register,
“These forums COMPRISE topics for ALL interests”
🙂

Are there a finite number of threads available?

In reply to And this is important why?

And, this certainly seems to fit the definition of “miscellaneous.”

[Author]

Replies