Jump to content

User talk:Giraffedata/comprised of

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Giraffedata

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 212.96.61.236 (talk) at 18:11, 5 February 2015 (→‎simply wrong). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for the user giraffedata's user subpage "comprised of", an essay on the phrase "comprised of" and giraffedata's work to keep it out of Wikipedia.

The purpose of this page is to talk about that essay, including any discussion of the subject of the essay, with anyone and everyone who is interested in the topic.

If you have something to say to the author of the essay but it doesn't amount to discussion of the essay or the subject of the essay (i.e. it isn't something you intend to discuss with everyone who is interested in the topic), a more appropriate place to comment is [User talk:Giraffedata|Giraffedata's user talk page].

Giraffedata is the editor of this page (as a form of user page, unlike an article page, it has an owner). Giraffedata does not manipulate the conversation, but does maintain the format of the page.

If you add a new comment, please put it in a new section at the bottom of the page. If it turns out that the comments are better organized by subject than by date, we'll reexamine this policy. A response, of course, should go in the same section with the comment to which it responds.

Giraffedata joins the discussion

I just discovered this page, thanks to Wikipedia's new notification feature, which notified me that someone added to it.

I wish I'd been following the discussion, because there are a lot of comments over the years that really deserved a response.

Much more discussion of my "comprised of" edits has taken place on my user talk page (which I think is a more appropriate venue for discussing particular edits), and I have participated in that.

I believe I am responsible for maintaining this page, as it is the talk page for one of my user subpages, so today I am deleting comments from before this year. Whatever was worth keeping, I've added to the subject page. The comments are, of course, always available in the page history - just look for yesterday's version of the page and you'll see the comments going back to when the page was created.

Bryan Henderson (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing this brought me back to this page. Giraffedata (Bryan Henderson), why don't you archive the old comments instead? An archive can of course be added to this page. Do you mind if I create an archive for it? Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Years ago, when I faced this issue with my user talk page, I looked up the Wikipedia guideline on old talk, and it listed several acceptable ways of disposing of it, one of them being just deleting it and letting people look to the history, as I did here. At the time, it didn't seem like archiving would be any better. But if you think it is — and you do the work (thanks for offering), I don't mind. I'd like to do it on a calendar year basis at least going forward.
Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Giraffedata, I moved old discussions to an archive (/Archive 1) and placed an archive box at this page. I hope you don't mind. I did not make a yer-based archives, because there are not so many posts. I copied all of them into one archive. But if you prefer, I can make several archives, one for each year. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's great. Thank you very much. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just rude and arrogant

Some people prefer "composed of", some "comprised of". If you write an article feel free to use your own form, but if someone has gone to the effort of writing an article it seems quite rude to impose your own preference after the fact. This would be like changing ize to ise by all the the American authors because I prefer ise. Instead is it generally convention to give some respect to the original author. I recognize some people prefer to enforce historical rules but many also prefer to allow language to continue evolving. Each to their own. Even Nature isn't that picky. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypherzero0 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand Wikipedia. The original author does not have priority. Every article belongs to everyone; every editor is encouraged to make whatever he considers an improvement to any article he finds. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia states, "no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited".
Any author who takes offense at his work being reworded just doesn't understand Wikipedia. An edit is not an insult. Wikipedia articles are for the readers, not the writers, so if there are people who prefer not to read "comprised of", it doesn't matter that the author likes the phrase.
The analogy to "ise" and "ize" does not work because there are far fewer people whose grammar says "comprised of" is the only right way to say something than there are whose grammar says "ise" is the only right way to spell something. Almost nobody believes that "comprised of" is better than every other possible wording. People who write "comprised of" almost always say it is "as good as" the alternatives or that they they weren't aware of the issue when they wrote it.
Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to Bryan. Grammar isn't a preference. There's a reason that we're taught it in school initially and not just allowed to develop it on our own.
98.111.204.34 (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Giraffedata's dedication to proper grammar on Wikipedia is neither rude nor arrogant. Nor is grammar a matter of choice. Although controversies do arise over competing standards (for example, the atrocious use of the indicative in subjunctive clauses is gaining acceptance in anglophone markets, even though it's, like, really, really stupid), as the G-Man points out, "comprised of" is incorrect everywhere. Perhaps the OP is confusing grammar with style. Grammar is governed -- or at least informed -- by logic, accuracy, and structural consistency. Style is a matter of euphony and historicity. Example: it's legal to split an infinitive ("...to boldly go where no literate person has gone before"), but it's bad style. This first point is not debatable; the second one is. Laodah (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more kudo

Thanks for doing this. "Comprised of" drives me nuts, especially in Simon and Garfunkel's "Poem on the Underground Wall", a song I otherwise love. (The substitution I make when I sing it is "comprising", which is correct and still scans.) ~ CZeke (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I just searched for those lyrics, and the few "sources" I looked at are in error. On the 1966 album Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme they sang "comprising" to rhyme with "advertising." Some internet transcriber fat-fingered it, and the error has propagated. Your alteration fixes that IRL, so I fling a sizable quantity of kudos in your direction. __Just plain Bill (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply excited me. I listened to every version of "Underground Wall" I could find -- studio, live, demo, all of it. I really wish you were remembering correctly, but you're not: Paul has never sung anything but "comprised of" in that spot. It's true that both versions can be found on lyrics sites, but rather than "comprised of" being a typo, "comprising" must be a correction. Someone out there had the same idea I did and decided to quietly fix Paul's grammar. Alas, the ear doesn't lie. ~ CZeke (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the record handy but in my memory it's distinctly a single word only comprising four letters. Have my ears been bowdlerising it all these years? —Tamfang (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comprises and comprised

According to Fowler's Modern English Usage, "comprise is appropriate when what is in question is the content of the whole and include when it is the admission of presence of an item". Which means that with comprise, all the items are understood be in the list.

Now according to the way I see it, if a narrative is written the past tense, then for example I might use consisted of like this: "The temple consisted of four walls, a truss roof made of wood, with ceramic tiles, and a simple stone alter in the centre". If I wanted to use the verb comprise instead, then I might write "The temple comprises four walls, a truss roof made of wood, with ceramic tiles, and a simple stone alter in the centre", but the meaning here is that the temple still exists, which may not be the case. The sentence should be "The temple comprised four walls, a truss roof made of wood, with ceramic tiles, and a simple stone alter in the centre". I've never heard anyone suggest that comprised should be used in this sense. It sounds odd, and yet it should be legitimate. --Jason210 (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds odd to me, too, but so does "the temple consisted of"; perhaps because one thinks of a building as comprising (and consisting of) spaces rather than objects — or because one expects the things comprised to be of the same broad kind, whereas with the temple you have structural elements (walls and roof), decorative elements (tiles), and contents (the altar). —Tamfang (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "comprised" used in the past tense doesn't sound odd to me at all when things were actually comprised. I have written hundreds of times in Wikipedia that some ancient city comprised the territory of the present day cities of A, B, and C. But I don't think of a temple as comprising its structural elements, so would not write "comprised" here. I can, though, see a meaning that is properly expressed as "consisting of" in this sentence.
Bryan Henderson (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take this a step further

One thing that your article made clear to me is that a large number of native-English speakers aren't entirely sure what comprises actually means. My suggestion is to simplify your advice to reader - never use the word comprise. Reading through your article, I didn't see a single example where comprise is the best choice of words. "Includes", "is divided into", "contains", "composed of" covers every possible meaning. Much like the best advice for people unsure about "whom" is to tell them never to use it, the same goes for comprise. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I almost agree that comprise is unnecessary altogether, but I think I've used comprise in places where it is slightly better than anything else I could think of. But I wouldn't miss the word if it were outlawed.
However, I don't think it's the case that people "aren't entirely sure" what comprises actually means. They're 100% wrong or 100% right. The 100% wrong people don't even know they're using the word "comprise". They're using the whole phrase "comprised of", which they are sure is OK. These people never use the word "comprise" in any other form. When told that "comprised of" is always wrong, then they either start using "comprise" correctly or stop using it altogether.
The same goes for the much smaller group of people who use the phrases "comprising of" and "comprises of".
So I'm saying it isn't like "effect" and "affect", which I read is the most commonly searched for thing on grammar web sites.
Bryan Henderson (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Composed of

BTW, the above is not considered proper use of the Queen's English, either. See [~Here~]. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 05:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the reference. As far as I could tell, it says the opposite.
Bryan Henderson (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Language changes

I find it curious you have this rather specific fixation and are seemingly convinced you're correct. Since language evolves with time we must incorporate these changes to reflect the reality of usage. If we didn't the "bastardisation of the Queen's English" also known as American English, or "American" if you're from the deep south wouldn't have been allowed. Spacepostman (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as specific as it seems. I feel the same way about dozens of popular English phrasings. I chose this particular one more or less arbitrarily to turn into a Wikipedia project. Also, while it may seem like a fixation if everything you know about me is this project, I actually do and think lots of other things; I am actually quite easily distracted from editing or thinking about editing "comprised of" out of Wikipedia. FWIW I confirm that I'm convinced I'm right (I wouldn't say "correct" because I don't think rules of English are rigorous enough for something to be correct or incorrect).
I know well the argument that language changes and therefore we should not care about "comprised of"; it is mentioned in the article.
Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

Interesting work regarding "comprised of"

Thanks for the information and edit on University of Georgia.

DMB112 (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I didn't know about the incorrectness of "comprised of." Thank you for the correction on my Women's health in India page.Jasdeepsgill (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More thanks

I was also confused about this usage. More importantly, your project and the impeccable reasoning behind it encourage me to correct grammatical errors whenever I'm inspired to. Until now, reading not just about you but the other editors engaged on similar activity, I had despaired of the prospects of maintaining communities which practised good English usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemp231252 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comprised vs. composed

Giraffedata, thank you for pointing out the incorrect usage of 'comprised' in the Immunolabeling article. It makes sense to keep it to your edited change of 'composed'; however, if 'comprised' is used in the correct context, I don't understand why it cannot be used on Wikipedia? Yes, I read your explanation on your page for further information. Either way, thank you for exchanging the word for the correct substitution, and I will be sure to watch out for the different meanings of these two words in the future. Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffe doesn't say it can't be used, just to use it correctly. I, on the other hand, am of the view that the English language doesn't need this word for anything and that English is better off without it. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ego White Tray, thank you for your additional opinions of the usage of comprised and clarification of Giraffedata's insights. As I stated previously, I will avoid the incorrect usage of this word on the article's main page. Thank you! Jbmontgomery24 (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another thanks

Thanks for fixing my mistake of that special phrase on Gangs in the United States. I feel better knowing a little more now, and I will do my best to avoid it in the future. poroubalous (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea

Seems like a good idea to me, I will likely follow your example in future edits. I would suggest that 'consists of' is probably a slightly better alternative than 'composed of', but that's probably personal preference. 'Comprise' is definitely compromised as to its current meaning. Eaglizard (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another motive

I was influenced by Fowler's Modern English Usage, whose principles include: Preserve useful distinctions. The language is not improved when it loses a way to distinguish between senses. —Tamfang (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GTA V

That edit you made to Grand Theft Auto V was comprised of great intentions. Thanks for it. ;) CR4ZE (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, by the definition and etymology of "comprise", wouldn't a phrase like "the world comprises San Andreas [..]" be an acceptable alternative as well? CR4ZE (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe it would. But the nuance of "comprises" is that the things comprised have some significant existence independent of the comprehension described, and I don't see that in San Andreas (but I'm willing to believe that someone who knows GTA better than I do would see it). So I slightly prefer other wording. I frequently write that a diocese comprises certain cities or that an ancient province comprised certain modern ones. See the "Comprises/comprising" section under "Alternative phrasing." Bryan Henderson (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

I just noticed one of your edits. Very interesting. What drives me crazy is "is home to" instead of "is the location of". Literally. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I haven't noticed that one. It's not in the same category as "is comprised of," though, unless the category is "poor language that bothers people," in which case there are thousands of these. Things in the same vein with "comprised of" would be "could care less" and "steep learning curve" (things that mean the opposite of what the speaker intends) and "could of" and "for all intensive purposes" (misheard things that are gibberish) and "utilize" and "due to the fact that" (deliberately making a sentence more complex to make it sound more intelligent). The "home to" thing sounds more in league with "as well as" used where "and" belongs.
Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Many people do not accept 'comprised of' as a valid English phrase for any meaning"

"Many people do not accept 'comprised of' as a valid English phrase for any meaning."

Hi Giraffedata, I strongly urge you to add a caveat to the above sentence. "Comprised of", like many other words and terms, is a perfectly valid phrase in English as long as it is applied to a specific subset of the language wherein it is commonly employed and accepted. "Comprised" and various combinations thereof are foundational and common in patent law: in the case of patents they are used to describe a list of things which are essential to a certain invention, with the nuance that the said invention is not necessarily limited to the things one has described. I suggest you rephrase some of your opinions in this essay for clarity and, on a larger scale, philological rigor.  White Whirlwind  咨  02:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't know any subset of the language where the phrase is universally accepted. In the case of patent law, I have read many patents and I agree that "to comprise" is especially common there, but the uses I've seen use the traditional definition: the whole comprises the parts. E.g. a stool described as "a system comprising three vertical members and a horizontal platform ..." I don't doubt that there are also many patents that use the newer definition in which a system is comprised of its parts, but I'll bet they are a distinct minority and that plenty of patent lawyers call it an error. Lawyers are known for sticking with old terminology, even to the point that modern English speakers don't understand them. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Why not make it a bot and save people time?"

If these edits are going to be allowed to continue, that is Wikipedia endorses it, why not make it a bot and save a lot of people time? How many people wake up in the morning, and do the morning search "wikipedia comprised of" and push buttons for a while? Alrich44 (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally support a bot that changes every instance of "comprised of" not in a quote to "composed of", but Wikipedia policy does not allow bots to do grammar edits. They fall into the category of context-sensitive edits, which require understanding the sentence more than a bot is trusted to do, meaning a bot could change things that shouldn't be changed. If automated grammar edits were allowed, there are probably a thousand things in the lists of misspellings, etc. that would be automated before "comprised of".
I know there are legions of wikignomes — people who wake up in the morning and start pushing buttons methodically to make technical changes like this throughout the encyclopedia. Their job is made easier by a variety of automation tools, but it's a pity it can't be automated more. The aforementioned list is of pages that consensus agrees should be fixed, so really ought to be empty.
Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why a bot? Why not an edit filter? There is one to detect email addresses. False positives could be avoided with hide n sic, detecting code tags, captcha, user preference, etc. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read up on edit filters, and as far as I can tell, they have never been used for language issues. Policy appears to be that they are for vandalism and common technical errors. Surely if "comprised of" were an appropriate use for an edit filter, there are a thousand other even more appropriate misspellings and such that would have them first. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Words meaning their opposites

There are many examples in English of words being their own opposites. See Auto-antonym and "Fun with words: Contronyms"..

It may be illogical, but the English language evolves that way. Take, for example, "nice". The obsolete usage, according to Merriam-Webster, is "wanton, dissolute". Think about that in the context of a phrase like "nice guys finish last". In that context, "nice" is taken to mean virtuous, respectable, or kind. The word has now evolved to mean the exact opposite of its earlier usage. "Comprised of" has evolved similarly, although I'll be the first to admit that having "comprises" and "is comprised of" mean the same thing is a bit odd. In the end, though, it's for the editors at large to come to an agreement on which variant to use, not for a single user to make a unilateral decision. If you haven't already done so, I'd suggest taking this up on one of the grammar-related pages, like WikiProject Grammar. That way, if debates come up in the future, you can point to the consensus rather than to a page you made yourself. – RobinHood70 talk 21:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that words change and can even change to opposites. While "comprise" may be evolving in that same general direction, it's still fundamentally different from nice, as evidenced by the fact that every major English dictionary still lists the original "include" meaning as not only current, but primary. So while the illogicality of a word having two opposite meanings isn't a reason not to use "nice" to mean nice, it's still a good reason to avoid using "comprise" to mean compose.
There isn't a page to come to a consensus on whether "comprised of" is welcome in Wikipedia. WikiProject Grammar lists as its 6th goal, "Not to argue about styles of grammar or correct spelling", so that's not it. I think the page that comes closest is Wikipedia Manual Of Style, but the few times I know someone has tried to get a ruling on "comprised of" there, the answer was that the Manual Of Style is not for grammar and usage issues; it's for technical things like punctuation. A Wikipedia article gets its grammar the same place it gets its facts: from the editing public. An editor who finds a sentence he thinks could read better in a different construction, like one who finds a fact he thinks is wrong, just changes it. If others disagree, they change it back (or preferably, look for a compromise). When a dispute arises, there are procedures to deal with that. Considering that each editor must use his own judgment in making these edits, a personal essay is the appropriate reference for the editor to use to explain his edit. No one should take such an essay as authority, of course. Other editors should read it and then reach and apply their own conclusions.
Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. While I have no particular objection to the use of "comprised of", if it makes you feel better, I have my own pet peeve which has entered acceptable usage, which I despise: "damn", as in, "I just fixed that 'damn' thing." UGH! A thing cannot be "damn", damn it, it can only be "damned". Apparently, nobody cares about this anymore, though. – RobinHood70 talk 19:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have only one of those? I probably have dozens. "Damn" as an adjective wasn't one, but I guess it will be now. Here are two similar ones I got from my brother, similar in that they were created by the same kind of mishearing, don't make any sense, and are acceptable usage now: "ice tea" and "ice cream". It's supposed to be "iced", as in the process used to make these items before refrigerators existed. You certainly don't make ice tea by steeping ice, or make a cream of ice.
It was not easy to choose "comprised of" as the one pet peeve in which to specialize on Wikipedia, but a big part of the decision is that there is still huge support for reserving "comprise" for its traditional meaning, which we can't say about "ice cream", and probably "damn." I am actually quite bothered by "due to" used as a conjunction, and still change it whenever I run across it in Wikipedia, but some research indicated grammarians have all but given up on that one, and I'd be pretty much out there all by myself. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump duscussion

There hasn't been a proper discussion of this for some time: Village pump (policy) # "comprised of" Primaler (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced at the Village Pump discussion, but I have nothing to add there. I'm glad that you wrote this essay to explain your rationale. I was confused when I consulted my Merriam-Webster dictionary and it listed "compose" as a synonym of "comprise." It would seem that the company is keeping up with modern usage, whether correct or not. But your essay makes it clear why "comprise" is deprecated. This suits me, so carry on. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (converse) 04:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency in motive

Hi! I approve of what you're doing, but you're wrong in one way or another. In one paragraph, you note that you would only consider it valid usage if 99% of the population considered it so (though you still wouldn't approve), but later, you mention that you don't do this for yourself, but instead... well, here's what you wrote:

Opposing:

  • "The prevalence argument does very little for me -- I don't see grammar as a majority rule thing. The prevalence would have to be about 99% for me to accept it as valid (though still unfortunate) usage. Bear in mind that a great many people write "could of", yet few people who study the issue argue this is a Wikipedia-worthy way to say "could have"."

Supporting:

  • "I am one of the people who consider "comprised of" poor English. But that's not why I edit it out; I don't edit Wikipedia for personal taste. The fact that lots of other people feel the same way is what makes it seem like a good edit to me."

These two things do not seem to jive to me.

Again, keep doing what you're doing (and thank you!), but change one of those two things. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asbdvklbsadfk (talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I'll have to think about how to clarify that. The fundamental distinction is that in one case, we're looking at whether one should use popularity of a phrase in deciding whether grammar allows it and on the other hand, we're talking about whether popularity of a grammar rule (considering that people do come up with different rules) makes it worth enforcing.
The fact that we're talking about a negative rule here (it's whether "comprised of" is allowed, not whether it is required) has something to do with popularity being more relevant on one side than the other too, but I'm not sure just how. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contextual Use

Historical usage: Google Book's Ngram Viewer for "comprised of, composed of, consists of" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.152.162 (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the source of one of the "other commentators" articles to which the essay refers. I found it fascinating and it was the source for my claim in the essay that the usage is new. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative phrasing example

I would like to suggest an alternative example for the second-last entry under "comprises/comprising": This case was meant to illustrate the use of "comprises" for uncountable objects, but the given example actually has ten (countable) acres) being the components of the campus. Perhaps it would be a clearer case if the example were "The campus comprises the woodland and marsh on the North side of the lake"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnlee (talk • contribs) 23:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valid uses of "comprise"

Hi! I think you should add a section about this -- when comprise is used correctly. (Comprise, not comprise of) This would also help people with their English.

e.g. On hill slopes, bedrock outcrops comprise half or more of the surfaces. Lehasa (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's in there. The first paragraph about the correctness issue gives the example, "The 9th district comprises all of Centerville and parts of Easton and Weston." and then there is a section under alternative phrasings dedicated to showing how to use "comprise" in a sentence that otherwise would have "comprised of". I know it doesn't cover every form of the word (tense, conjugation, number, etc), but it should be sufficient.Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity and the possibility of including other things too without complete list.

If I were to say Borsch is comprised of beets, to me, that means that borsh likely includes other things. If I were to say Borsh includes beets, it makes me think that Borsch is a person and is actively making a choice to include people... If I were to say Borsch comprises beets, that leads me to believe that Borsch compromises beets, and with a double take I think that it means that beets are in a group called borsch... (I am not familiar with this usage)... Then Borsch is composed of beets or is a composition of beets, or has a composition of beets... that may lead me to believe that borsch is only beets.

Borsh is comprised of beets (seemed ok to me, but is now a bit grating after your article)
Borsh is composed of beets (now seems ok to me.... but it still seems to have an omission)
Borsh is made of beets (has an unidentified omission, and is wrong)
Borsh comprises beets (makes me think that all beets are borsh, which is wrong...)
Borsh composes beets (is wrong.. unless borsh gains sentience on Red Dwarf and comes back and starts arranging them)

What would you use to ensure the clarity of the possibility of including other ingredients? Composed of makes me think it is a complete list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.42.29 (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your interpretation of "comprised of" is fairly unique (one of the great reasons to avoid "comprised of" is that people do have varying definitions of it). According to the dictionary, in that construction, it means the same thing as "composed of", which I agree means you're listing every component. "borsch comprises beets" definitely doesn't mean all beets are borsch because "beets" just means at least two beets, but it does mean Borsch contains nothing but beets. I like the idea of reserving "includes" for an action, though I think it is well accepted just to show membership ("My cell phone plan includes 100 free text messages a month"). May I suggest "contains"? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peeving, prescriptivist poppycock

Are you aware of the essay Counterfeit cultural capital by U Penn linguistics professor Mark Liberman? He argues that using “comprised of” is just fine. Among other things, he refers to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. Have you consulted it? --ChPietsch (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall seeing that essay before, but I looked at it and it is the same as all the others: it proves that "comprised of" is in common use, which is not a controversial fact. It is clear to anyone who has read a dictionary recently (and I'm fully versed in all of them in re "comprise"). It also shows it has been used for a long time, and that some respectable people have used it. Any claim that "comprised of" is not popular is poppycock.
Indeed, a rule that "comprised of" should not be used is prescriptivist grammar and someone who studies or follows that rule is a prescriptivist, and peeves many people. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

simply wrong

Hi there,

I've been described as an excellent writer when I'm paying attention, and also have edited professionally. Look, "comprise" (single word) is when certain things together establish a whole: the whole must follow as an object. It's a rare word. For example, 12 items comprise a dozen. (Because, by definition). A tuxedo, tuxedo shirt, black bow tie, cufflinks, pocket square, and shoes comprise a complete tuxedo ensemble. The word is rare in this context. People don't often know that the whole must follow: "four people comprise the committee" is the correct usage, but surprising and foreign-sounding to people and I would not use it except in an extremely stilted context where my readers will go and look it up. The "12 items comprise a dozen" or Tuxedo examples I might use.

It's a matter of definition and equivalence.

Secondly, like ALL words that have an object, we can grammatically make it passive in the normal way. Can't really think of exceptions. You make it passive by putting the object (the whole) first, and putting the original subject as the object. A dozen is comprised of any 12 items. (Because any 12 items comprise a dozen.)

It is different from your suggested alternatives, because your suggested alternatives don't have the sense of definition. Another very good usage is 'consist' followed by in. (Google 'consist in'). This usage is defined here - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consist

So, you see, "comprised of" is like "consists in" whereas "composed of" just sounds like "consists of". It is missing the crucial definitional nuance.

Since you miss this nuance, it is possible that every one of your changes is wrong and that you should revert every one. Please consider this very carefully and reply with your reasoned response. I think you've been missing something all these years. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"comprise" (single word) is when certain things together establish a whole: the whole must follow as an object. It's a rare word. For example, 12 items comprise a dozen.
This is the definition that is hotly disputed. Traditionally, the word you want here is "compose" - in the words of my first dictionary: "the whole comprises the parts; the parts compose the whole". More recently, this additional definition (comprise = compose) has become common, but the original definition has not lost any ground. In fact, all dictionaries still call it the primary of the two definitions. My essay is all about explaining why I think it's a good idea to stick to the traditional definition of "comprise" in Wikipedia.
I don't doubt that "comprised of" has some nuance for you that none of the other phrases do, but the problem is that it's just you - you want to use a word the way everyone understands it, and as far as I can tell from the thousands of contexts I've seen it in, it's all over the map, but usually one of those things the listed alternatives say. There are definitional nuances in "composed of", "consists of", and "is" that I think most people get, and I use those where the sentence calls for a definitional nuance. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having consulted dictionaries, I must apologize and declare I was wrong/missing something:
You are absolutely correct that comprise has two antonymic meanings. The first is that "(the whole) contains", the second is that "(the parts) constitute". So the first listed definition is that a typical orange comprises 6-8 wedges, whereas the second is that 6-8 wedges comprise a whole orange. That is confusing. It is very likely to be the reason that the word is so rare - such as the word 'fulsome'. I never use fulsome and very very rarely have used 'comprise'. Looking at the etymology, it would make far more sense for me to have selected #1 rather than learned #2 as I mentioned above. The word comes from 'understand' or comprehend, or contain. It doesn't come from a word meaning 'together constitute'. So, I must say that with the knowledge that there are two antonymic meanings, I would argue for everyone to agree on the one that is etymological, as that's easier to remember. In fact the actual result is that it just becomes a very rare word.
I would say that, with this knowledge, perhaps I will always use 'constitute' in contexts where I had been using 'comprise' (very rarely), since it means something like (together) 'set up' or 'establish'. So I would argue that for #2, perhaps the word 'constitute' should always be used.
Therefore going forward I would use "12 items constitute a dozen" and "A tuxedo, tuxedo shirt, black bow tie, cufflinks, pocket square, and shoes constitute a complete tuxedo ensemble". I simply would not use 'comprise' at all. I don't use words with two antonymic meanings, especially where it's stilted like fulsome or comprise.
We now move on to 'comprised of'. This is problematic because I and others use it all the time: "Our company's core team is comprised of three employees" is absolutely understood and standard. Contains isn't right. 'Consists of' doesn't have the meaning of 'is constituted by' (which sounds awful!!). You need a word that means 'is constituted by'. How is 'is comprised of' not a good candidate to be that word?
If you want to strike from usage 'is comprised of', then why don't you suggest a phrase that means exactly 'is constituted by'? What's your best candidate? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on what exactly you wish to say, I claim "our company's core team is composed of three employees", "consists of three employees", or "comprises three employees" will say it to most readers. Or if you want to try even harder, branch out and say, "three employees constitute our company's core team," since you really seem to want to talk about constitution. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at your suggested options. I don't think 'is composed of' (our core team is composed of three employees) is current usage at all - it sounds like chemical composition. Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. That's how I would use 'composed'. They chemically 'compose' together. I don't think 'consists of' sounds good, just a list follows, you can just say "sand consists of various small...". In fact I googled 'sand consists of' and got tons of examples like "The preparation of sand consists of five basic processes: natural decomposition, extraction, sorting, washing, and in some cases crushing." you see, nothing about parts and whole. "reclaimed sand consists of halogen-free anionic, cationic and nonionic surfactants" the way it says surfactants means it's not even precise enough to be a definition of 'these parts constitute a whole'. So that's out.
We are now left with exactly your suggestion 'comprise' and no alternatives. But I won't use comprise because it has two antonymic meanings. Whereas 'is comprised of' has, according to you, no meaning. So, if 'is comprised of' has no meaning, why can't we assign it the meaning of Comprise that you have suggested? It is what I do and a good solution. Let me give you another example of a word I don't use: bimonthly. It means either every two months, or twice a month. So, I use fortnightly for the latter and 'every two months' for the former. It would be like you came along and said, well, look, nobody should use the word fortnightly, it's not a real word. Since we're filling a niche, why not have it be that? Etymologically it may be meaningless or wrong, but who cares. As you have eliminated all other choices, we are left with a word with a paradoxical etymology. That is fine. At least it's unambiguous. Egregious means 'very bad' today - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/egregious - even though it literally means outstanding. (standing out of the flock) and used to mean outstanding in the positive sense. So, we're left with outstanding and egregious, both mean standing apart, one in a good way one in a bad way. Another example is notorious and famous. of course we will keep notorious for bad contexts - why shouldn't we? I don't use it in a positive sense, because we have "famous". Language evolves, and as you have given no good alternatives I must insist on keeping 'is comprised of' in a paradoxical sense where you would use 'comprise'. I will keep saying, "The team is comprised of 5 members." It sounds fine, has no natural meaning, isn't rare, and means what I mean. I think you should do the same. I hope you've found this convincing, but welcome your feedback if I'm missing something. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

off of

Kenaag (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC) I have problems with[reply] 

'off of'  ie 'East Street runs off of High Street'   is not just 'off' correct?

Wow

Giraffedata, you're my hero. 161.247.135.32 (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

compare with "possessed of"

The overwhelming majority of Americans are possessed of two great qualities a sense of humor and a sense of proportion. Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/f/franklin_d_roosevelt_4.html#ImV5LuvlaACDXfii.99

I very much doubt that Roosevelt was confused about who was doing the possessing and what they possessed.

In this grammatical construction "is possessed of" means possesses. Similarly "is comprised of" means the same as comprises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.107.211 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't studied "possess". Off the top of my head, I would say Roosevelt's construction is a poor choice for a Wikipedia article (I don't plan to use it myself, anyway), and I'm sure the history of "possess" is quite different from the history of "comprise" and that there is no general grammatical rule that you can use "of" that way. If there is, maybe someone will come by and tell us the name of it.
It's an interesting comparison, though - one I haven't considered before. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a losing battle..?

According to one online dictionary (freedictionary.com),

"...opposition to this usage is abating. In the 1960s, 53 percent of the Usage Panel found this usage unacceptable;
in 1996, only 35 percent objected."

And with reference to the "possessed of" section above, it's pleasant to know that at least the OP girafficionado is still possessed by the proper usage of grammar, no matter how sadly quixotic the battle is becoming.

In any event, my pet peeve is the mis-use of the apostrophe. Both "it's" vs "its" (does anyone in America even use the latter anymore?), as well as the ubiquitous usage of "CD's", "DVD's", and the abysmal "the 1990's" etc... I must attempt programing a bot to boldly seek out and destroy these apostrophical annoyances on Wikipedia and elsewhere!
As I am not too familiar with Wikipedia, any advice would be welcomed from folks here on how to do this possibly Herculean task (hopefully using someone else's CPU cycles, of course!).

--Aqking (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We came across this discussion from https://medium.com/backchannel/meet-the-ultimate-wikignome-10508842caad
I'm not sure what battle you're talking about. If it's a battle to stop "comprised of" from being fully accepted under English grammar, I agree. I don't know if it will or not, but I can't imagine anyone, by editing Wikipedia or doing anything else, changing this fate. (The reason I don't think it's inevitable is that "comprised of" has been in use for at least a few hundred years and hasn't taken over yet). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage

This work has recently received media coverage and commentary.

The original article by McMillen cites a Wikimania 2012 presentation by Maryana Pinchuk and Steven Walling, which Walling linked in a comment, where they laud Giraffedata and this effort beginning at 48:16. I share their enthusiasm! Emw (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Comprised of" tolerance

My only argument against this is that the usage of "comprised of" is so pervasive in the English language today. In fact, I think that of all the times I've ever heard or read the word "comprise" or it’s derivatives, it has nearly always been used with "of".

As much as I dislike the fact that grammar and spelling issues that I consider to be incorrect are incorporated into the English language every year (and get off my lawn!), the fact is that this is how it works. I think "comprised of" should be moved from "discouraged" into "accepted" now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfren484 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That vs Which

From your article:

"concentrate on the articles which don't have such owners, which are the vast majority."

You may wish to reconsider your usage here ;)

http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaThat_Versus_Which.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.160.123 (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself told.

Might be time to do something else: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/05/why-wikipedias-grammar-vigilante-is-wrong Pete5677 (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giraffedata/comprised_of&oldid=645774351"