> the language has not really evolved. Are you sure? There appear to have been 90k instances of usage in widely read reference material (e.g. Wikipedia, bar th

> the language has not really evolved. Are you sure? There appear to have been 90k instances of usage in widely read reference material (e.g. Wikipedia, bar this crusade). I'd say that qualifies. > I don't see any evidence of the latter. I'm pretty sure people use it based on the meaning they intend it to have, see prior statement for substantial evidence :P > sure, language evolves as people use it differently. But why is it any more valid to push the language toward using "comprised of" in this new way, than it is to push the language to avoid it? I don't think anyone but the Wiki editor is pushing anything. I'm saying use language as you like, just don't try to justify your personal crusade based on "correctness", be it moral or technical. I don't care for that style of usage of "comprised of" either, particularly, but I wouldn't try to tell other people how to write, and I think the meaning and purpose of the phrase is perfectly clear.