ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

well according to the dictionary that comes with macs (oxford concise iirc) wracked & racked are acceptable for the 'racked by pain' example. according to my american heritage, only 'racked' is acceptable in the first usage. 'wrack' specifically means the wreckage of a ship, or to be wrecked (intr.) or to wreck something (trans.)

of course there's nothing stopping you from comparing your state of pain to being metaphorically similar to the wreckage of a ship! but I would go with 'racked by pain' to be safe

wracked with pain, rather than by, i think? afaiac 'racked with pain' is wrong.

merriam-webster seems to agree with american heritage in that they define 'wrack' as to be utterly ruined or wrecked, where as 'racked' means to cause intense suffering, anguish, pain, through torture, etc.

xp oxford concise says someone can be 'racked with guilt'

i have the full oed at my fingertips here at work! so far... it is not backing me up.

oh hi, usage note from the oxford concise:

The relationship between the forms rack and wrack is complicated. The most common noun sense of rack, ‘a framework for holding and storing things,’ is always spelled rack, never wrack. The figurative senses of the verb, deriving from the type of torture in which someone is stretched on a rack, can, however, be spelled either rack or wrack: thus, : racked with guilt or : wracked with guilt;: rack your brains or : wrack your brains. In addition, the phrase : rack and ruin can also be spelled : wrack and ruin .

on a further note, 'rack' seems to derive from an middle dutch word via middle english for 'framework', whereas 'wrack' seems to have derived from the middle dutch word 'wrak' which is related to shipwrecks, wrecking, wreaking, etc.

so maybe choose based on whichever metaphor is appropriate - is the pain more similar to being racked on a torture rack? or is it more similar to being smashed by gale winds against sharp rocks at sea? :)

rack, v.1
2. trans.
b. Usually of a disease: to cause extreme pain to (a person or a part of the body). Also occas. intr. of a person or part of the body: to be tormented by pain or disease.

c. To inflict mental pain or torture on (a person); to torment (the mind, soul, etc.). Now usu. in passive.

(and 'by' and 'with' seem interchangeable)

wrack, v.2
3. To cause the ruin, downfall, or subversion of (a person, etc.); to ruin, overthrow. Also refl.
b. To render useless by breaking, shattering, etc.; to injure or spoil severely; to destroy.

so... yeah, my instinct is totally wrong.

Mine too! Damn.

we had this on another thread lately iirc, caused by my correct usage.

i'm sticking by that version of events btw

"the family comprises of four members"!

"consists of" or "comprises," surely.

You'd certainly have thought so, but who's to say in this pied times?

this these, Christ.

consists of/is comprised of

Laurel, I like that use of "comprised," but according to Webster's, it's the newest/iffiest of all the standard uses -- some people still think you should just use "composed" in that instance

the "(whole) comprises (parts)" usage is first in Websters, and the "(parts) comprise (whole)" is second -- the latter is more comfortable to be, but I think they're equally standard

sorry, more comfortable to ME. and by "newest/iffiest" I mean it's been in use since the 18th century, but some people think it's kinda off

Fuck these 18th century Johnny-come-latelies

"Comprises of" is probably the one term that makes my skin crawl the most. Ergo, it must be wrong, right?

Yeah it's wrong. "Comprises" or "is comprised of" but never "comprises of".

Yeah, even though it's in common usage, I would never use "is comprised of" in an official/work-related context.

IIRC, some old-timer wrote in to my college's alumni magazine a couple years ago to berate the staff for using "comprise" incorrectly.

i'm confused how "comprises" can equal "is comprised of" without switching the order of whole and parts. can it really?

These are all correct:

Hispaniola comprises Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
Hispaniola is composed of Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
Haiti and the Dominican Republic compose Hispaniola.

This is wrong (or rather, the prevailing view is that this is wrong):

Hispaniola is comprised of Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

(Also traditionally wrong: Haiti and the Dominican Republic comprise Hispaniola.)

I wouldn't let "of" go anywhere near "comprise*"

Is there any way of reading "comprises" to mean "includes, but is not limited to..." or "contains"?
E.g. I would say "pancake batter consists of flour, milk and eggs" but could you say "pancake batter comprises flour and milk" leaving out the eggs? A co-worker once expressed surprise that their legal document made this distinction between the two words (er, not relatign to pancakes) but to me it sounded OK. I suppose context is key.

From Webster's Third New International:

5 a: to consist of : be made up of [. . .] b: to make up : CONSTITUTE <the receipts comprised the fifth-larest gate in boxing history - John Lardner>. vi: to be made up : CONSIST - used with of <the funds of the association shall comprise of members' subscriptions - Education>

i think it's awesome that the last two posts on this thread have typos in them. my dietary consumption today was comprised of three vodka tonics.

Help: got a mental block here. Do we say "for old time's sake" or "for old times' sake" or even "for old times's sake"? (i.e. is it for the sake of old time or for the sake of old times?)

The latter, imo. For old times' sake.

^^^ I'm standing with Laurel here.

thanks

Eminem disagrees.

http://www.blindiforthekids.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/eminem-old-times-sake-feat-dr-dre-300x300.jpg

yeah but he also wrote one of his letters backwards

It's pretty hard to imagine someone saying "for the sake of old time"

these are insane computer time's we live in

It is even harder to imagine someone saying "For the sake of old time feat. Dr. Dre."

for the sake of old lang time?

what a horribly formed joek

Two that have been bugging me in '10:
"Kills germs by millions on contact"
"Purpose for your visit"

"Purpose of", or "reason for", yes; but "purpose for"??

I think the best response to "purpose for your visit" would be "yes, are you offering?"

To which the best response would be stares.

Took me a long time to parse this sentence, on a small poster pinned to a local tree:

HUGE USED BABY AND CHILD CLOTHES AND ITEMS SALE

Not helped by a big picture of a baby. How could they have said this so it didn't lead me to wonder what the huge baby had been used for?

Baby clothes for sale- used. Huge.

cf. hoardings occasionally seen declaring GIANT SHIRT SALE.

Huge sale of baby and child clothes and items - used.

"Darling v Osborne: who do you trust?"

I know it really ought to be "whom", but it looks unnecessarily finnicky in a headline. Thoughts?

would 'which do you trust' be wrong?

If you grant Darling and Osborne personhood, then which is wrong. If you don't, fill yer boots.

Darling v Osborne: do you find one slightly less untrustworthy than the other?

Limited character count, people!

"Darling vs Osborne: Which?"