ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

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?"

& 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.

http://www.boston.com/ae/music/blog/edge.jpg

Are you "hot on the trail" of someone or "hot on the tail"? Or do they mean different things?

believe it's the first in reference to hunting dogs. have never heard of the second usage

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

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=

huh. maybe it's in reference to chasing an animal?

Prob confusion between "on (someone's) trail" and "tailing" someone in a surveillance way.

At least some of the results for "hot on the tail of" seem to use it as synonymous with "in the wake of"/"shortly after."

I'd use "hot on the heels"
About 59,700,000 results (0.39 seconds)

Hm, same problem I think - I'd usually expect that to mean "soon after" rather than pursuing something.

Or do they mean different things?

Both are metaphors, but each invokes a slightly different image. To be hot on the trail of someone or something implies following a scent or other vestiges of passage. To be hot on the tail of someone or something implies following closely enough to have the object almost within one's grasp, certainly within sight.

The other suggested variant, of being hot on the heels, implies an even stronger degree of closeness.

Obv, you can use any phrase that adequately expresses what you want to convey. There's no need to employ the most common one, if something else says it better.

When you have a phrasal verb which finishes with 'on' and the next word in the sentence is 'to', you don't combine them into 'onto', do you?
E.g.
He went on to become a laywer v He went onto become a lawyer
She moved on to the next task v She moved onto the next task
I feel the first form is right and second one wrong, but I'm having a crisis of confidence.

don't combine

i am in harbl agreement

Same here. A small peeve of mine.

yeah, 'onto' implies 'on top of' for me. He climbed onto a lawyer

not saying that it can't ever be used, so

Beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers' effect on risk of stroke

Does "beta-blockers" need an apostrophe too?