ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

I like the difference between comprise and compose, but I'm not gonna go to the grave for it. You gotta pick your battles. I'm focused on fighting off 'free reign.'

There's no way I can let the author (a doctor, of course) have this last comma.

"Improved validity of the studies is needed, but it is better served by more insightful reviewers and consumers, accepting the trial-and-error nature of that process."

You can't cut off two nouns from a verb like that, or I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Er, kinder/k3vin, "comprised of" has been used since the 18th century according to Merriam-Webster. Now a question of preference rather than right and wrong.

http://missioncreep.com/tilt/comprise.html

Morbs, what if he's not talking about the reviewers and consumers doing the accepting, but in accepting in general?

Like

"Improved validity of the studies is needed, but it is better served by more insightful reviewers and consumers, in keeping with the trial-and-error nature of that process."

I mean, I'm not sure either. Just a devil's advocate observation, in keeping with the spirit of this thread.

that's how i read it. I might have used brackets for that last bit tbh

Brackets FTW. I think that's how it was meant.

I wouldn't let "Improved validity of the studies is needed" past either. If what he's saying is that he needs more valid studies, then he should say "More valid studies are needed". Otherwise it sounds like he's trying to improve the validity of the existing studies, which is presumably impossible.

improved validation, maybe.

Course, that's unnecessarily obscure gobblygook

which is the fave dialect of medical writers.

That use of "accepting" is weird to me, but I'll accept it!

thank God I'm not an editor, so I can't rewrite everything or I'd never go home.

yeah that 'accepting' = 'allowing for' imo

actually the start of that sentence is "Improved validity of observational studies is needed..." and I'll assume readers know he means doing different studies.

Yeah, but just leaving the sentence as it is except for taking out that last comma makes the meaning of the whole sentence ambiguous at best.

xxp

But I'm gonna leave the comma in and go with the "in keeping with" interp.

ah ok, sorry

Er, kinder/k3vin, "comprised of" has been used since the 18th century according to Merriam-Webster. Now a question of preference rather than right and wrong.

I'm not sure I'd go that far. Because a small but vocal group still persists in deeming the usage incorrect, it's impossible to use in a publication without creating the impression for some people that you "don't know the difference."

Is 'comprises of' also correct? Bc I've seen that a lot too.

That's worse, isn't it?

definitely, and possibly why I hate 'comprised of'

'comprises of' is yet another example of people using too many prepositions. Pet hate.

Can someone offer an example of "comprises of" usage? I've never seen it before and can't imagine anything wronger.

Any estate agents site in the UK... "this property comprises of one bathroom, two bedrooms," etc

Google search this: "comprises of" site:http://www.rightmove.co.uk

:(

Er, kinder/k3vin, "comprised of" has been used since the 18th century according to Merriam-Webster. Now a question of preference rather than right and wrong.

http://missioncreep.com/tilt/comprise.html

― Science, you guys. Science. (DL), Friday, September 9, 2011 10:19 AM (13 hours ago)

this basically says it's been used incorrectly since the 18th century, lol

"compose" is an elegant and underused word and there's no reason to misuse "comprise" in its place

Elegant is an elegant word

You should never post on this thread.

Compose is composed but comprised has been compromised

Don't you think you're being a bit negative there WmC?

About you posting on this thread? Definitely.

Er, kinder/k3vin, "comprised of" has been used since the 18th century according to Merriam-Webster. Now a question of preference rather than right and wrong.

http://missioncreep.com/tilt/comprise.html

― Science, you guys. Science. (DL), Friday, September 9, 2011 10:19 AM (13 hours ago)

this basically says it's been used incorrectly since the 18th century, lol

Permalink
― comes correct with his gameboy (k3vin k.), Saturday, 10 September 2011 03:22 (52 minutes ago)

you belong in the 18th century

xp
I'll try make a point to limit my wacky one-liners to threads which don't comprise of sourpusses. EOC

this thread sucks

why do you say that, bamcquern

My pet drafting hate: "this" without a noun afterwards, e.g.

The discovery of these paradoxes has also stimulated a great development of the mathematical theory of logic. While this has led to the discovery of results of high mathematical and philosophical interest, it has not, in my opinion, led to any satisfactory resolution of the difficulties of finding a logical foundation for the subject.

Does "this" refer to the discovery, the development or the theory? Aargh.

development

yeah I know but it's not sufficiently flagged up for the reader, it's the writer's job to make that kind of thing easy

agreed

currently proofing my girlfriend's thesis. We're subsequently not on speaking terms

Being driven by editing annual report, much of it written by a CEO who puts spaces after opening brackets and before closing brackets, and before all punctuation. Sample sentences look like this.

And so we at the Doodah Council of SA ( DCSA ) love writing bullshit !

Being driven MAD I meant

"this" without a noun afterwards

it's not sufficiently flagged up for the reader, it's the writer's job to make that kind of thing easy

This is a problem with all anaphoric/cataphoric referencing, though, surely? (If you see what I did there.) It *is* up to the writer to write clearly, and if they can't use basic words with clarity then it's their fault and nothing inherent to the word.

I agree (although I don't know what "anaphoric/cataphoric referencing" means). When I wrote "my pet drafting hate: 'this' without a noun", I meant "people who use..." Looks like my own drafting could be tightened up.

Nah, I think we still disagree, actually. My point is that 'this without a noun' is fine if used clearly. Anaphoric/cataphoric referencing is, without going into endophora and deixis in general, stuff that requires contect - anaphora points backwards (so 'blah blah blah <-- THIS'), cataphora points forwards (as in 'THIS will be pointing forwards: the cataphoric reference').

Stuff that requires CONTEXT. My typing is bad today.

Rule of thumb is that "this" most likely refers backwards to the last noun used OR (by usage) the dominant noun in the last clause containing nouns. The (poor) writer may know what this dominant noun is, but doesn't spot that an unhipped reader won't.

I think it's got way worse -- as have related probs like dangling modifiers -- since word processing enabled instant redrafting and word-order shift on an industrial scale.

it's = the general situation in this regard, dear unhipped reader

why does "It held little interest to me" sound so wrong when "It was of little interest to me" is fine? just the Preposition Factor? I should change it to "for me," right?

for me, i think?

R.E.M. Breaks Up: Michael Stipe, Bandmates Release Ends Run

Can someone diagram this bullshit for me? Is "release" a noun or a verb in this headline?