The term "language police" has been around as long as I can remember, but I've never heard the phrase "false arrest by the language police" before. Love it.
Caught the reference on this discussion about the proper usage of comprise. So-called language police will often correct use of "comprise" to mean "made up of" when the classical and defended usage is "to consist of" or "embrace" as in "the whole comprises the parts."
Examples of correct usage:
- The United States of America is a republic that comprises 50 states.
- The box set comprised 32 CDs of Blues and R&B.
Examples of incorrect usage:
- Fifty states comprise the United States.
- Comprised of dozens of companies, the association supports the advancement of proper grammar and usage.
According to "How to Use the Word 'Comprise'" by Samantha Garner, you should mentally substitute "include" to verify proper usage. So "the United States... includes 50 states" is OK, but "fifty states include the United States" is obviously wrong.
This is one that has nailed me a few times, and I'm not entirely sure the distinction is useful or functional enough to justify continued defense. I see it misused more than I see it used correctly, and by fairly smart people who tend to know their way around the language. Thus, you could make the argument that the "proper" usage seems to be largely defended only by a very small minority that may be more interested in traditionalism than evolution of language.
I'm for preventing the erosion of language, but there's also a point where one has to say that the common and accepted usage trumps the original. I might be willing to concede we've reached that point on "comprised" but would not be willing to concede on the misuse of "then" for "than," as an example... All use of language is arbitrary, and as much as it grates on some people to see standards slipping, it seems unlikely that one would find success in correcting the masses on this one.
So... what's the thought on this one? False arrest or throw the grammar book at the offender?
Loading ...
5 Comments
Languages are alive, and as such they change. A horrible example of this it is now seen in Spanish, specially in Latin America's Spanish: the word “bizarro” is constantly used with the same meaning of the English word “Bizarre” (that's it: eccentric, freakish...), but if you look at the “Diccionario de la real academia española” (www.rae.es) you'll see that the real meaning is completely different: it refers to a valiant, generous and splendid person...
Which is worse, language misuse or language contamination?
Both are bad...
:,(
@RGB I think I'd say language *mutation rather than contamination. Long term, I think mutation is inevitable.
"So... what's the thought on this one?"
uh, perhaps you meant, "So... what're the thoughts on this one?"
It's just a thought.....
The parts compose the whole, but the whole comprises the parts.
You know how you don't use the "blink" or "font" tags any more in HTML (you don't, right?) Think of "comprise" the same way. All it does is give the reader a little mental judder as he or she tries to remember the rule. Your prose reads like a badly-laid-out 8-track tape.
Question of syntax, transitivity and etymology. From O. Fr. "compris", lit. "taken together", in pde one would need to add some form of "be" to get it to work:
? the United States (are) fifty states taken together
? fifty states taken together (are) the United States
are both similarly acceptable, although the second is vague (not all sets of fifty states could make up the US, only American ones).
So it's strangely arguable that comprise can be transitive in both directions. But in French
"cinquante états comprennent les États-Unis"
is definitely wrong, while it works the other way. This is because there's no need in French for an auxiliary to make the verb work literally since it conjugates that way - as in pde "include":
? The United States include fifty states.
* Fifty states include the United States.
Hence the rule of thumb cited in the article. The functional problem with substitutional rules of thumb is that they are functionally dubious - "include" is neither the same as "comprise", nor is it an exact synonym.
Also, check 3rd definition here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/COMPRISE
It's safest to use "compose" rather than "comprise", as the dictionary states, although I'd argue it's not outright 'wrong' to use "comprise" or "are comprised of" in a similar manner.