4 ms·

Your argument is that etymology doesn't matter, but you also make the etymological argument the other way? Well, ok, but we are not criticizing use of "compris

Your argument is that etymology doesn't matter, but you also make the etymological argument the other way? Well, ok, but we are not criticizing use of "comprise" but of "comprised of". This table setting grasps together [three things]. This table setting comprises three things. This table setting [together grasps] three things. These are all correct. *This table setting is grasped of a plate, cup, and flatware. *This table setting is comprised of a plate, cup and flatware. *This is grasped-together of a plate, cup, and flatware. These are all wrong, for the same reason (so it can't be the Oxford comma). If you wouldn't say it out loud with "comprised of" replaced by "included of", then it's wrong. That's the simple rule. The backwards version is "The plate, cup, and flatware is comprised of the place setting" means "The plate, cup, and flatware is the total-grasping-together of the place setting." It becomes clear if you write it this way how awkward it is, and the preposition clearly seems like the wrong one, so this is why the standard advice is just to avoid this confused, clunky phrasing.

dllthomas 3y ago
My point was that your argument was bad, not that we should misuse "comprise." So yes, I noted that etymology doesn't matter when determining modern meaning, but went on to point out that even if we assume that it does the argument doesn't hold up, because it's a terrible argument. You talk a lot here, but none of it actually follows. People write "is comprised of" because they confused it with "is composed of". "Com-pose" means "place together"; doing the same things does not make clear which should be which way 'round. For the record, I kinda like having a separate word for "makes up" versus "is made up of" and would prefer people stop confusing the two. I just don't think we need garbage arguments in support.

dllthomas 3y ago

My point was that your argument was bad, not that we should misuse "comprise." So yes, I noted that etymology doesn't matter when determining modern meaning, but went on to point out that even if we assume that it does the argument doesn't hold up, because it's a terrible argument. You talk a lot here, but none of it actually follows. People write "is comprised of" because they confused it with "is composed of". "Com-pose" means "place together"; doing the same things does not make clear which should be which way 'round. For the record, I kinda like having a separate word for "makes up" versus "is made up of" and would prefer people stop confusing the two. I just don't think we need garbage arguments in support.