4 ms·
The article doesn't even properly explain the mistake. Though it's easy enough to look it up in a dictionary and see that the "of" is superfluous.
by TillE 12y ago
The article doesn't even properly explain the mistake. Though it's easy enough to look it up in a dictionary and see that the "of" is superfluous.
- bmmayer1 12y agoThe user's wiki page does explain what is wrong with "comprised of": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giraffedata/comprised_of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giraffedata/comprised_of
- vinceguidry 12y ago"Comprise" has very specific usage. If you refuse to learn it and use it anyway, it makes you look to someone who does know that usage like you're trying too hard to sound smart by using words above your pay grade. I can see why people get activated one way or another over it. "Comprise" is a line toed in the dirt, a battle over what language means and how it should be used.
- ashark 12y ago"To comprise" is differs subtly in meaning, too. It implies encompassing or comprehending, not just being the sum of these parts. It places the whole above its constituents. Insisting on using it as a perfect but "smarter" synonym for "to be composed of" is poor writing and contributes to what may be the eventual loss of that word and, with it, our ability to succinctly express that notion, for no useful purpose.