we had this on another thread lately iirc, caused by my correct usage.
i'm sticking by that version of events btw
― May be half naked, but knows a good headline when he sees it (darraghmac), Wednesday, 19 May 2010 15:55 (fourteen years ago) link
"the family comprises of four members"!
"consists of" or "comprises," surely.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 4 June 2010 17:07 (thirteen years ago) link
You'd certainly have thought so, but who's to say in this pied times?
― GamalielRatsey, Friday, 4 June 2010 17:09 (thirteen years ago) link
this these, Christ.
― GamalielRatsey, Friday, 4 June 2010 17:10 (thirteen years ago) link
consists of/is comprised of
― the soul of the avocado escapes as soon as you open it (Laurel), Friday, 4 June 2010 17:51 (thirteen years ago) link
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
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Friday, 4 June 2010 18:01 (thirteen years ago) link
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
― Haunted Clocks For Sale (Dorianlynskey), Friday, 4 June 2010 18:12 (thirteen years ago) link
"Comprises of" is probably the one term that makes my skin crawl the most. Ergo, it must be wrong, right?
― Not the real Village People, Friday, 4 June 2010 18:15 (thirteen years ago) link
Yeah it's wrong. "Comprises" or "is comprised of" but never "comprises of".
― Haunted Clocks For Sale (Dorianlynskey), Friday, 4 June 2010 18:26 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― jaymc, Friday, 4 June 2010 18:34 (thirteen years ago) link
i'm confused how "comprises" can equal "is comprised of" without switching the order of whole and parts. can it really?
― harbl, Friday, 4 June 2010 20:09 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― jaymc, Friday, 4 June 2010 20:17 (thirteen years ago) link
(Also traditionally wrong: Haiti and the Dominican Republic comprise Hispaniola.)
― jaymc, Friday, 4 June 2010 20:19 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― Not the real Village People, Friday, 4 June 2010 20:41 (thirteen years ago) link
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>
― bamcquern, Saturday, 5 June 2010 02:17 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― sarahel, Saturday, 5 June 2010 09:19 (thirteen years ago) link
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?)
― I Ain't Committing Suicide For No Crab (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Thursday, 10 June 2010 20:25 (thirteen years ago) link
The latter, imo. For old times' sake.
― the soul of the avocado escapes as soon as you open it (Laurel), Thursday, 10 June 2010 20:26 (thirteen years ago) link
^^^ I'm standing with Laurel here.
― Aimless, Thursday, 10 June 2010 20:40 (thirteen years ago) link
thanks
― I Ain't Committing Suicide For No Crab (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Thursday, 10 June 2010 20:44 (thirteen years ago) link
Eminem disagrees.
http://www.blindiforthekids.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/eminem-old-times-sake-feat-dr-dre-300x300.jpg
― Beware, I Hongro! (onimo), Friday, 11 June 2010 13:31 (thirteen years ago) link
yeah but he also wrote one of his letters backwards
― harbl, Friday, 11 June 2010 14:07 (thirteen years ago) link
It's pretty hard to imagine someone saying "for the sake of old time"
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Friday, 11 June 2010 14:46 (thirteen years ago) link
these are insane computer time's we live in
― harbl, Friday, 11 June 2010 14:49 (thirteen years ago) link
It is even harder to imagine someone saying "For the sake of old time feat. Dr. Dre."
― breaking that little dog's heart chakra (Abbott), Friday, 11 June 2010 14:53 (thirteen years ago) link
for the sake of old lang time?
― gin bunny (c sharp major), Friday, 11 June 2010 14:56 (thirteen years ago) link
what a horribly formed joek
― plax (ico), Friday, 11 June 2010 15:54 (thirteen years ago) link
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"??
― Not the real Village People, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 17:20 (thirteen years ago) link
I think the best response to "purpose for your visit" would be "yes, are you offering?"
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 22:50 (thirteen years ago) link
To which the best response would be stares.
― bamcquern, Thursday, 17 June 2010 00:58 (thirteen years ago) link
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?
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Thursday, 17 June 2010 14:13 (thirteen years ago) link
Baby clothes for sale- used. Huge.
― Remember when Mr Banhart was a replicant? (darraghmac), Thursday, 17 June 2010 14:19 (thirteen years ago) link
cf. hoardings occasionally seen declaring GIANT SHIRT SALE.
― sent from my neural lace (ledge), Thursday, 17 June 2010 14:23 (thirteen years ago) link
Huge sale of baby and child clothes and items - used.
― Background Zombie (CharlieNo4), Thursday, 17 June 2010 14:42 (thirteen years ago) link
"Darling v Osborne: who do you trust?"
I know it really ought to be "whom", but it looks unnecessarily finnicky in a headline. Thoughts?
― Background Zombie (CharlieNo4), Friday, 18 June 2010 13:58 (thirteen years ago) link
would 'which do you trust' be wrong?
― gin bunny (c sharp major), Friday, 18 June 2010 14:06 (thirteen years ago) link
If you grant Darling and Osborne personhood, then which is wrong. If you don't, fill yer boots.
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Friday, 18 June 2010 14:21 (thirteen years ago) link
Darling v Osborne: do you find one slightly less untrustworthy than the other?
― Gohamist (zvookster), Friday, 18 June 2010 14:24 (thirteen years ago) link
Limited character count, people!
― Background Zombie (CharlieNo4), Friday, 18 June 2010 14:26 (thirteen years ago) link
"Darling vs Osborne: Which?"
― Remember when Mr Banhart was a replicant? (darraghmac), Friday, 18 June 2010 14:28 (thirteen years ago) link
& personhood be damned, lack of it didn't harm blair for a start
The results are in...
"Darling v Osborne: who’s got the edge?"
Heh.
― Background Zombie (CharlieNo4), Friday, 18 June 2010 15:09 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.boston.com/ae/music/blog/edge.jpg
― HI DERE, Friday, 18 June 2010 15:21 (thirteen years ago) link
Are you "hot on the trail" of someone or "hot on the tail"? Or do they mean different things?
― Alba, Monday, 21 June 2010 10:44 (thirteen years ago) link
believe it's the first in reference to hunting dogs. have never heard of the second usage
― maybe it's because you're a tedious creep! (dyao), Monday, 21 June 2010 10:45 (thirteen years ago) link
What surprises me is that that "hot on the tail" has so many more hits in Google than "hot on the trail". I expected it to be closer.
'hot on the trail' = About 215,000 results
'hot on the tail' = About 2,870,000 results
― Alba, Monday, 21 June 2010 10:50 (thirteen years ago) link
Oh, those links buggered up:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=SRK&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=%22hot+on+the+trail%22&aq=f&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=SRK&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=%22hot+on+the+tail%22&aq=f&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
― Alba, Monday, 21 June 2010 10:51 (thirteen years ago) link
huh. maybe it's in reference to chasing an animal?
― maybe it's because you're a tedious creep! (dyao), Monday, 21 June 2010 10:57 (thirteen years ago) link
Prob confusion between "on (someone's) trail" and "tailing" someone in a surveillance way.
― the soul of the avocado escapes as soon as you open it (Laurel), Monday, 21 June 2010 13:31 (thirteen years ago) link