|
|
Post by Dave on Jan 2, 2018 15:44:48 GMT
It's odd that it's Jan. 2, and I'm starting the monthly thread from the US, last of the NTAPS time zones.
I've just read Word Nerd (John D. Williams), anecdotal stories concerning Scrabble. A few typos slipped through the editing process, but notably on the cover is the title on a Scrabble rack: 8-letter title portrayed on a 7-letter rack!
In the book, the author uses comprise where I perhaps would have used compose. What is the collective thinking here regarding the use of these two words?
|
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Jan 3, 2018 9:59:28 GMT
Happy New Year 😀 . I think it depends on the context. I think I could devise sentences such that one could use either word correctly to convey the same meaning but that normally I would use comprise in relation to the description of something whereas compose would refer to an activity of mine. i think I would compose the construction of a word which might then comprise the letters I had used. Not sure; but I think the context would make all the difference.
Regarding the illustration with an eight letter word rack, I doubt it was a mistake; just artistic licence, although not perhaps the most happy in a book devoted to Scrabble. In any case, I am sometimes a rebel and if I want to use racks of any numbers of letters I would feel free to devise my own rules. I find playing Monopoly is only tolerable if I tweak the rules. Incidentally, I had no idea how many tiles were used in Scrabble so I Googled Scrabble and clicked on images and saw that racks of various numbers of letters are used for all sorts of purposes so, perhaps, justifying the usage on the cover of The Word Nerd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jan 4, 2018 4:28:14 GMT
I think the difference between comprise and compose is clearly explained in many references on the Internet. Do a Google search for "comprise vs compose". To quote: Basically, these two words are the opposite of one another. Compose is used when the part comes before the whole, and comprise is used when the whole comes before the part.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Jan 4, 2018 5:07:20 GMT
It's not quite that simple, though, as the order in a sentence doesn't necessarily follow the causation.
The problem usually arises when the sentence is flicked round into the passive, or gains an alien "of":
The meal comprised soup and a sandwich - is fine.
The meal was comprised of soup and a sandwich - is odd, because you now have the ingredients comprising the whole. It would be better to use "was composed of".
The meal comprised of soup and a sandwich - is neither one thing nor the other and would be better said using "consisted of".
The "wrong" versions are so plentiful that, from a statistical viewpoint, they represent normal English. Yet they will offend those who see more clearly what is happening in the sentence, or hold on to what they see as the "better" way of putting things. I'd put the problem in the same class as the split infinitive: quite normal in day to day English, but best avoided so that all readers get through without stumbling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jan 5, 2018 1:16:46 GMT
Dave,
I would not consider your second and third examples to be correct English as I don't accept the construction "comprise of". As far as I know "comprise" is a transitive verb and is so defined in my Macquarie dictionary. I do, however, agree with your observation that "comprise of" is so widely used that most would probably accept it as normal English.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Jan 5, 2018 8:16:22 GMT
Geoff
I don't consider the second and third examples to be correct, either! I just bow to the evidence of numbers, in accepting that "normal” English is not always "logically correct" English.
I don't understand the point about comprise being a transitive verb, though. Both "make" and "hear" are used transitively, in constructions that correctly produce "made of" and "heard of", surely?
|
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jan 5, 2018 22:00:04 GMT
Dave,
As a transitive verb "comprise" takes a direct object. The "of" is not required.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Jan 5, 2018 23:09:05 GMT
Ah, I see. I agree that the "of" is neither required nor pleasant. I just don't think that that can be inferred from the verb being transitive. Otherwise, we'd not be able to say things like I don't know what to make of that or I often hear of him. Or are they different?
|
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jan 5, 2018 23:09:25 GMT
You're all trying to confuse me, aren't you? To my simple brain, "comprise" means "to be composed of", as in Dave M's first example of "The meal comprised soup and a sandwich".
"Great Britain comprises England, Scotland and Wales", "Great Britain is composed of England, Scotland and Wales", or "England, Scotland and Wales compose Great Britain". "Comprised of" never makes sense, because it would mean "composed of of".
USA Dave: I know the fires are at the other end of California to you, but it's good to see that you're still posting and presumably have been unaffected!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jan 6, 2018 15:28:29 GMT
I thought it was - Things comprise a group
- A group is composed of things
but my early Google search yielded conflicting answers. Common usage, of course, distorts the results. |
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jan 6, 2018 22:53:27 GMT
My 1991 Chambers dictionary defines "Comprise" as, "to contain, include; to consist of", so a group comprises things, not vice-versa.
|
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jan 7, 2018 4:28:00 GMT
You're all trying to confuse me, aren't you? To my simple brain, "comprise" means "to be composed of", as in Dave M's first example of "The meal comprised soup and a sandwich". No, not at all. Just different ways of looking at the problem. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jan 7, 2018 9:44:50 GMT
You're all trying to confuse me, aren't you? No, not at all. Just different ways of looking at the problem. Just my strange sense of humour, Geoff. |
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 8, 2018 2:16:52 GMT
New Year greetings to all! It's a Monday, so am at work with internet access. (The enforced digital detox is difficult!)
One of my constant tasks at the newspaper is to emend real estate adverts that contain the egregious comprising of. Arrgghh!
A property comprises rooms, outbuildings, gardens, etc.; it never comprises of or is comprising of.
There are days when I'm tempted to abandon all attempts to emend property ads as it's an endless, thankless task. An ad that I emend one week will reappear the next and contain the very same errors as previously emended. Of course, if I made no changes, the advertising agents wouldn't notice.
Many real estate agents seem incapable of correctly spelling place names, even in their immediate locale; and they nearly always misspell bails (as in dairy / milking shed) as bales. Further, few of them know that "there's A RAT in separate", and spell it seperate.
One of our real estate advertisers is such a shocking speller, especially of place names, that for Xmas I sent her a list of all our region's place names, compiled from the five local-government directories. It's patent that she has yet to consult it, as her spelling of towns and streets is still atrocious.
And if I had a dollar for every time I've correct "highly sort after area" to […] "sought-after" […] I'd be a wealthy fellow indeed.
In my paper (and, I suspect, most others) real estate and entertainment are by far the worst at orthography. They drive me crackers, but they also provide a large part of my earned income. Another positive is that they feed fuel to my Grumpy Old Man fire. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Jan 13, 2018 16:53:04 GMT
For want of a more interesting post: I am on holiday in southern India and have noticed how frequently one encounters a capital A without the crossbar. I had thought it was a bit of British trendiness but it is common here and I see that the (Indian) Tata motor group uses the device in its logo. I don’t recall the idea being used until a very few years ago and I wonder if it originated with Tata? But I see Samsung also uses the idea. How can I discover when it was first used?
|
|
