(OT) Everybody knows that the world is full of stupid people...
- Thread starter Mouseferatu
- Start date
Eosin the Red
First Post
Wormwood said:
Looks like a shame to me.
DerianCypher
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Idiots...
Matthew Gagan said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiots...
The topic is idiots, and I mentioned a relevant type that frustrate me, but okay. Here's a less touchy angle maybe - nothing makes some people more idiotic than the opposite sex. I have a friend who's S.O. has cheated on them several times, and they know it. This person has also maxed out *two* of their credit cards. Needless to say, they're getting married in May.... They won't listen to reason: they're in "love."
DerianCypher said:
The topic is idiots, and I mentioned a relevant type that frustrate me, but okay. Here's a less touchy angle maybe - nothing makes some people more idiotic than the opposite sex. I have a friend who's S.O. has cheated on them several times, and they know it. This person has also maxed out *two* of their credit cards. Needless to say, they're getting married in May.... They won't listen to reason: they're in "love."
RenoOfTheTurks
First Post
tarchon: Very interesting points, but then, since composed also includes definitions that end with "of", would we not, by your reasoning, conclude that saying "composed of" is also wrong because in that case too we'd be ending with "of of"? So the argument wouldn't seem fatal to using "comprised of" either.
I can't find the argument in your third paragraph...did you mean to write "composed-of" in the second line?
Is part of the issue whether comprise is a synonym for compose at all, and not just whether the phrase comprised of is ok to use in place of composed of?
You seemt to be quite convinced of this all, so try to clarify it for me because I find the question interesting.
I can't find the argument in your third paragraph...did you mean to write "composed-of" in the second line?
Is part of the issue whether comprise is a synonym for compose at all, and not just whether the phrase comprised of is ok to use in place of composed of?
You seemt to be quite convinced of this all, so try to clarify it for me because I find the question interesting.
tarchon
First Post
The key point is that none of the synonyms for comprise work in the phrase, which is because the phrase "comprised of" doesn't make any sense with comprise used in its basic meaning. Comprise is simply not commonly used as a synonym for compose except in this one fixed phrase (though sometimes you see "comprised from" and "comprised out of"). I just did a search of comprise on AltaVista - every use without the preposition I looked at is in the basic sense of "include" while every instance with the preposition is in the sense of "compose," giving us this bizarre word that completely flips around its meaning when it's constructed with "of," "out of," or "from." It's so glaringly obvious that the similarity to "compose" leads to this that I personally can't look at this phrase without it leaping out as an instance of the author's vocabulary being overreached.
The other day I was in a meeting where a speaker said he was "reticent" to do something. I knew very well that he meant either "reluctant" or "hesitant" because they're obviously similar and I've heard people make that mistake before, but that doesn't make it stand out to me any less as a kind of semi-educated usage, someone trying to impress the audience with a vocabulary he didn't quite have control over.
("Reticent" for those who don't know basically means "silent"
)
I don't object so much to colloquial uses of such things, but it seems to me as though professional authors should have a better grasp of the words they use.
It is a judgement call as with most usage issues, but i think the case against "comprised of" is pretty strong.
The other day I was in a meeting where a speaker said he was "reticent" to do something. I knew very well that he meant either "reluctant" or "hesitant" because they're obviously similar and I've heard people make that mistake before, but that doesn't make it stand out to me any less as a kind of semi-educated usage, someone trying to impress the audience with a vocabulary he didn't quite have control over.
("Reticent" for those who don't know basically means "silent"
)I don't object so much to colloquial uses of such things, but it seems to me as though professional authors should have a better grasp of the words they use.
It is a judgement call as with most usage issues, but i think the case against "comprised of" is pretty strong.
RenoOfTheTurks
First Post
Hmm, I got a similar feeling about the word flipping meanings, as you put it, when "of" is added after. And the supposition that the word's similarity to "compose" causes this flipping sounded plausible to me. So, those scientific folk who began using "comprised of" in the 19th century have foisted a mistake upon us, and literary people have accepted it more and more since?
However, my Webster's Unabridged suggests that the "of" added afterwards did not itself flip the meaning around. Let me copy out the relevant explanation:
"Comprise has had an interesting history of sense development. In addition to its original senses, dating from the 15th century, 'to include' and 'to consist of' ('the USA comprises 50 states'), comprise has had since the late 18th century the meaning 'to form or constitute' ('fifty states comprise the USA'). Since the late 19th century it has also been used in passive constructions with a sense synonymous with that of one of its original meanings 'to consist of, be composed of': 'the USA is comprised of 50 states'. These latter uses are often criticized, but they occur with increasing frequency even in formal speech and writing."
So comprise had both uses for a century before "comprised of" came into use. Adding "of" does not have anything to do with changing the meaning of the word, then. It seems to me that certain definitions or synonyms of both comprise and compose will not make any sense if you put an "of" after them, so we can't use that as an argument against using "comprised of".
Are there other problems you have with the phrase? At this point I'd say two things. One, if anything we should teach people to avoid "is comprised of" because it is unnecessarily passive and because the shorter "comprises" works just as well. Two, for the sake of preserving the power and precision of English we should perhaps use "comprise" so as not to overlap with "compose", and vice versa. But note that here we deal only with "comprise" which in fact *does* flip both ways and overlap with "compose" (see Webster's above), before the "of" is even considered.
Many interesting considerations comprise this discussion.
However, my Webster's Unabridged suggests that the "of" added afterwards did not itself flip the meaning around. Let me copy out the relevant explanation:
"Comprise has had an interesting history of sense development. In addition to its original senses, dating from the 15th century, 'to include' and 'to consist of' ('the USA comprises 50 states'), comprise has had since the late 18th century the meaning 'to form or constitute' ('fifty states comprise the USA'). Since the late 19th century it has also been used in passive constructions with a sense synonymous with that of one of its original meanings 'to consist of, be composed of': 'the USA is comprised of 50 states'. These latter uses are often criticized, but they occur with increasing frequency even in formal speech and writing."
So comprise had both uses for a century before "comprised of" came into use. Adding "of" does not have anything to do with changing the meaning of the word, then. It seems to me that certain definitions or synonyms of both comprise and compose will not make any sense if you put an "of" after them, so we can't use that as an argument against using "comprised of".
Are there other problems you have with the phrase? At this point I'd say two things. One, if anything we should teach people to avoid "is comprised of" because it is unnecessarily passive and because the shorter "comprises" works just as well. Two, for the sake of preserving the power and precision of English we should perhaps use "comprise" so as not to overlap with "compose", and vice versa. But note that here we deal only with "comprise" which in fact *does* flip both ways and overlap with "compose" (see Webster's above), before the "of" is even considered.
Many interesting considerations comprise this discussion.
Henry
Autoexreginated
Talk about rotten timing...
Hi, All. You may have noticed a few of the threads with edited out political content. Unfortunately, at the time I posted, I did not see the two posts previous to mine, and it apparently started something overnight that REALLY didn't need to be started.
Talking about everyday foibles you run into every day is perfectly cool - but ENWorld is going to delete Political content, as per current rules.
I want to say thanks to all those who did see what slipped by, reported it, and didn't respond. My apologies for not seeing it sooner, and my apologies to those who may have had non-political content cut.
-Henry
Hi, All. You may have noticed a few of the threads with edited out political content. Unfortunately, at the time I posted, I did not see the two posts previous to mine, and it apparently started something overnight that REALLY didn't need to be started.
Talking about everyday foibles you run into every day is perfectly cool - but ENWorld is going to delete Political content, as per current rules.
I want to say thanks to all those who did see what slipped by, reported it, and didn't respond. My apologies for not seeing it sooner, and my apologies to those who may have had non-political content cut.
-Henry
