4 ms·

> "to comprise" is distinct from "to be composed of", because the latter is actually "to be", with a past participial phrasal verb. This is like writing that t

by ashark 12y ago

> "to comprise" is distinct from "to be composed of", because the latter is actually "to be", with a past participial phrasal verb. This is like writing that the company "Apple" is distinct from "John Deer" because one name consists of one word and the other of two, in that it's both true and beside the point. I don't think that fact had escaped anyone, and they are distinct for more reasons than one being a verb and the other being a verb phrase. > "to be comprised of", on the other hand, is not distinct from "to be composed of". The people choosing the former over the latter—to whom we are clearly deferring if we accept the spirit of your statement, which I take to be that one may be replaced with the other in a sentence with exactly no modification of meaning—seem to believe they are not quite the same. If I may venture a guess: they think the former is a smarter or more formal but otherwise perfectly identical version of the latter. Still, that is a difference not without significance, and one I trust you did not intend to dismiss. Further, they differ in a way that the people committing the (if I may) error do not anticipate: to a good portion of those who understand how to use "to comprise" in the ordinary fashion, its use in this manner is a sign of poor writing, of the sort a well-intentioned but inexperienced high school student might produce. This is the exact opposite of what is intended in the typical case, I expect. (Apologies in advance for any grammatical, word usage, or spelling mistakes I have undoubtably made, to preempt posts about that.)

kazinator 12y ago
Note that "to comprise" means both "to contain" and "to constitute". These meanings are exact opposites.
- ashark 12y ago
  A good point. I'd say it's more that the relationship expressed by the verb may go either from subject to object or object to subject, depending on context, and with a subtly different meaning depending on which direction it goes. I certainly don't see it as its own antonym—either way, it means some sort of inclusivity. It's a really useful and economical word, which is why I'd hate to see it fall (even farther) out of use owing to fears that it will confuse the "to be comprised of" crowd.

by ashark 12y ago

kazinator 12y ago

Note that "to comprise" means both "to contain" and "to constitute". These meanings are exact opposites.

ashark 12y ago
A good point. I'd say it's more that the relationship expressed by the verb may go either from subject to object or object to subject, depending on context, and with a subtly different meaning depending on which direction it goes. I certainly don't see it as its own antonym—either way, it means some sort of inclusivity. It's a really useful and economical word, which is why I'd hate to see it fall (even farther) out of use owing to fears that it will confuse the "to be comprised of" crowd.