Language is comprised of rules that change over time. If everyone understands a sentence, how can it be incorrect? I suppose I'm just confused by crusades like this.
> Language is comprised of rules that change over time. If everyone understands a sentence, how can it be incorrect?
In the case of misuses of "comprise" like yours, because everyone doesn't understand it: when the phrase "is comprised of" is used, its not clear if the meaning is "is composed of" or "includes", which indicates a potentially non-exhaustive listing of constituents, or "comprises", which indicates an exhaustive listing of constituents.
The preservation of clear, distinct, and precise uses improves the ability to communicate ideas. Truly, language usage evolves over time, but it evolves due to the aggregation of choices people make, and those choices can improve or hinder communication. It is good to make those choices with open eyes -- and to advocate for better choices and against worse ones.
I don't think the distinction between exhaustive and non-exhaustive constituents is something that most people would pick up on.
Using overly precise wordage that not everybody understands is just as bad as not being precise enough. In fact, it might even be worse: if you detect some ambiguity, you can ask for clarification. If you don't know the difference in words, you can't even tell that you don't know and might interpret the sentence incorrectly.
Which is why the edits this guy has been making have generally been to eliminate the 'is comprised of' usage, not to replace it with 'comprises', but to replace it with clearer, unambiguous forms.
It's possible for a sentence to be understandable, but still be jarring to read. His user page gives another example: "could of". If you see that phrase, you know what the author meant, but it interrupts the flow of reading. There's also the issue that an article (especially on Wikipedia) seems less credible when it contains spelling and/or grammatical errors. It gives the impression that the author wasn't careful when they wrote it, or that the article hasn't been widely reviewed by others.
Relaxation of rules makes language less precise, and when phrases that mean different things come to mean the same thing, then expressing distinctions requires more words and clumsier constructions.
Also, take your example: "Language is comprised of rules that change over time." The correct alternative is shorter and simpler: "Language comprises rules that change over time." Most people don't even know that there are two perfectly good verbs "to compose" and "to comprise" that let you avoid the "is ... of" construction. If people see the clumsier construction in "good writing" they will never know that there is something better.
Isn't your "Language comprises rules that change over time." statement invalid as well? The word comprises should be used when there exists a definite set of items.
For example: "That house comprises 4 rooms" versus "That house comprises at least 4 rooms". The second statement should be "That house is composed of at least 4 rooms" because the room count is not an exact quantity.
I think you're right. In my head I was equating "language" with "grammar" and I think it's fair to say that you can specify grammar with a definite set of rules. But at least human language has more than that.
Improper or nonstandard use of a word may reduce the precision in an alternative phrasing of equal conciseness.
This is the same reason why I carry on an utterly futile crusade against the use of the word "amazing" as a popular synonym for "doubleplusgood". We have synonyms to color the context and add subtle shades of meaning to our sentences. When they are employed inappropriately for an excessive duration, some opportunities for subtlety and artistry in language may be lost forever.
There was a time when "fine" was better than "good". But now one of the meanings is a level of quality that is merely passable or acceptable. Having ground "fine" as a descriptor of quality down to a dust of exceedingly small particle size, shall we also do the same to "amazing"?
"Mom, this pot roast is amazing--not as good as last night's tacos, but definitely amazing."
"You ungrateful brat! Leave this table and study, so that you might improve your pitiable grades from 'amazing' to passing."
I remember them every Memorial Day, and shed a single tear for them.
That's one tear for all of them, not one for each. And it's a metaphorical tear, not an actual tear. If you really want to be accurate, it's more like a metaphorical grim and wistful expression, with a tantalizing moistening of the eyes, followed by uncharacteristically rapid blinking. It's very sad, yes, but it's not like those words are dead--they just have severe brain damage and will need arduous custodial care for a few more decades, until they can safely be allowed out on their own again.
Truth be told, I was actually thinking about my dear old deceased dog in that metaphor, because my eyes are actually rather dry otherwise. I use the same trick when I wear contacts. And I always get Memorial Day and Labor Day confused. One is at the start of summer, and the other is at the end. So I might have accidentally metaphorically shed an almost-tear for all of them on Labor Day. They will be missed. Because, by choice, I don't ever visit them at their assisted living facility. Or write them. Or write to them.
For all intensive purpose`s ,your write ,but is they`re really any need to disperage on peoples` pet hobby`s ?
Myselfs` experience has been that even descriptivist`s have a braking point ,they`res always something that make`s them cry ,,, `stop !`, even when its' clear enough what is meaned !!!We`re is you`re point .I wonder!
Of coarse ,perchance the point is mute ,nobodies` going too pursuede the gy to stopp useing his toothcombs`,,,
"comprise" would be currently going through a transposition of meaning if English was an oral language. This should be perfectly fine and English would be the richer for it, i.e. we'd have a new useful way of 'aggrandizing a sentence' (as he mentions as a negative in his 6,000 word essay). Instead the 'hero' of this article is contributing to the fossilization and stagnation of the English language, making his case by appealing to etymology and notions of logicity [1] and precision more suited to a formal grammar. He specifically calls out its' novel usage (post 1970!) as being a negative.
I think his efforts are generally good, in so far as the phrase 'comprised of' might be a good signal that a new wikipedia contributer is trying to aggrandize their contributions over and above their knowledge, but I think he is misguided in dictating how language aught to be used.
Oral language does not require as large of a vocabulary. You can color the meaning of any spoken word by intonation and diction. If, for instance, you chose to speak only the word "dude", you could probably still make yourself understood to any native speaker.
As English lacks punctuation modifiers for altering the context and intent of a written sentence, we accomplish that end through an expanded lexicon, wherein several is more than a few and less than a buttload, despite each word representing an unspecified quantity.
English is far more likely to invent a new word, filch one from another tongue, or reuse a previously disused English word with a new sense or different part of speech, than it is to recalibrate the ordering of synonyms on a continuum of intent.
"Comprise" and "compose" are inverse terms. Using one when you mean the other initially generates confusion, and subsequently destroys the language model around composition. The whole comprises the parts, and the parts compose the whole. Passive voice is an inverting structure, so the whole is composed by the parts, and the parts are comprised by the whole. Include is a weaker form of comprise, without the implication of completeness (except in legal writing, where that implication is the default, and comprise is not generally used). But as the inverse of include is exclude, inclusion is more about membership in the set than about a level transition in the composition hierarchy. A league comprises teams, and a team comprises players. Yet a league does not comprise players; the league includes players. This is how we describe things precisely and concisely.
Oral use is much more forgiving of misuse, as it has error-correcting code in the form of context and intonation. Written use has a greater need for correctness, especially when such use is read by many, any of whom may repeat and propagate the error.
And I think parent post is incorrect. When you transpose or rotate the meaning of a word onto the meaning of an existing word, English is poorer for it. Once those meanings overlap, it is as difficult to separate them into different shades of meaning as it is to unlock gimbals. Also, "aught" is the shortened version of "naught", or zero, whereas "ought" is the synonym for "should" with a greater implication that the actor is obligated to perform, but not quite to the extent that he "must".
Logicity is perfectly cromulent, though someone should elucidate the conditionals for when it would be preferacious to logicality.
Made up word? You've used it, so it's real now. I like it. There's a certain truthiness to it.
I think your argument is a compelling one. The richness and color of our language (and, if I may, I'll make the distinction between the varying forms of English here - not all variations embrace the tinted varietals of words) is largely due to this organic growth and change of its usage. While personally I don't use "comprised of" (that I know of - my memory is imperfect), I don't know that I'd choose to battle over the usage of the phrasing. I recognize that some common phrases evolve out of this sort of natural mutation of language.
Biweekly, farther vs further, and so on. Many words have two completely disparate meanings, whether the meanings are formally accepted or not. It sucks. I don't know if one more word added to the list is such a big deal, given how big the list is.
It can sometimes help to look at a more extreme case. In the Swedish language, words get bound together in order to differential different meanings of the same word.
For example, frozen chicken liver is spelled "fryst kycklinglever" while if you typed "frozen chicken lives" it would be "fryst kyckling lever". Sadly, splitting words incorrectly is the most common form of grammatical mistake in Swedish, so this result in enormous amount of sentences being hilariously incorrect. Most people will of course understand the intended message, as frozen chickens in boxes are unlikely to be alive.
That's a different kind of error, namely an error in phoneme to grapheme conversion. So, if you want nitpick, do it right ;).
At any rate, language changes. Both meanings of words, what is considered syntactically valid (see, 'because ADVERB'), and how phonemes are realized. Of course, that does not mean that one shouldn't point out errors (they're vs. their vs. there). However, sometimes errors become common usage.
You'll hate me for this. "... comprised of ..." is incorrect.[1] Please forgive me. It occurred to me you might be trolling, but I concluded you weren't.
That mistake was intentional. My point was that language isn't programming, it's not exact. You understood the sentence and we successfully communicated. I'm a fan of correct grammar and I try to use it. But this article documents a very extreme reaction to a non-problem in my opinion.
Grammar guides are not infallible. Usage changes over time. From thefreedictionary.com/comprised:
"The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole. In strict usage: The Union comprises 50 states. Fifty states compose (or make up) the Union. Even though careful writers often maintain this distinction, comprise is increasingly used in place of compose, especially in the passive: The Union is comprised of 50 states. Our surveys show that opposition to this usage is abating. In the 1960s, 53 percent of the Usage Panel found this usage unacceptable; in 1996, only 35 percent objected."
I'm kind of like the view that people use language to communicate as they feel fit and then grammar guides should record how a language is used rather than try to dictate how.
frecuently when about english is the topic mistake programmers understandable with nice to read, usually avoid those programmers recommend I as crappy code is written if no fuck is given about aesthetics of something to communicate has been written
In the case of misuses of "comprise" like yours, because everyone doesn't understand it: when the phrase "is comprised of" is used, its not clear if the meaning is "is composed of" or "includes", which indicates a potentially non-exhaustive listing of constituents, or "comprises", which indicates an exhaustive listing of constituents.
The preservation of clear, distinct, and precise uses improves the ability to communicate ideas. Truly, language usage evolves over time, but it evolves due to the aggregation of choices people make, and those choices can improve or hinder communication. It is good to make those choices with open eyes -- and to advocate for better choices and against worse ones.