 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007comprise and consist of
What's the difference between comprise and consist of? Thank you. > What's the difference between comprise and consist of? Thank you. I don't think there's any real difference in ordinary usage. Among US patent writers, however, "comprise" and "consist of" are terms of art with different meanings, "comprises" meaning "includes, but is not limited to", while "consists of" means "includes only, to the exclusion of anything else". I'm not sure if this is one of the nonsensical things invented by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (MICIA) or whether it has some deeper roots in historical patent practice.  SignatureSalvatore Volatile Hi. Yeah. I think when you say 'is comprised of' or 'consists of', you are obliged to give everything that it consists of or is comprised of whereas when you use 'comprise' as a transitive verb you can mention only some of the things it comprises or includes without necessarily producing an exhaustive list. Such as: 'Goodness comprises kindness but isn't comprised of kindness alone.' > Hi. Yeah. I think when you say 'is comprised of' or 'consists of', you > are obliged to give everything that it consists of or is comprised of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Such as: > 'Goodness comprises kindness but isn't comprised of kindness alone.' No! The whole comprises the parts. An orchestra consists of percussion, strings, woodwinds, and brass instruments. An orchestra comprises percussion, strings, woodwinds, and brass instruments. Both of these verbs imply that the all the parts are named. An orchestra includes brass and woodwinds. Note that this verb does not require all the parts to be named. Use is changing, but not in that implication, only permitting "comprise" to be used in the passive, and to have the parts as the subject. See American Heritage Dictionary: http://www.bartleby.com/61/72/C0537200.html definition and Usage Note. The Usage Note under "include" is also useful: http://www.bartleby.com/61/38/I0083800.html Cece > The whole comprises the parts. I think that there is also a usage of saying that the parts comprise the whole.In this usage I agree that all the parts ought to be named.But when you are saying that the whole comprises its parts, you are not obliged to name all the parts but only such as have occurred to you.In this sense 'comprise' means 'encompass' or 'extend to' or 'include' and not 'is constituted by'.I disagree with Donna that we ought to stop saying 'comprise' altogether.Rather,I think that it is 'consist of' that we must avoid in all but the most careful writing, and even then,use it only in definitions since otherwise we run the risk of making too sweeping a statement.Also it clearly pays to keep this distinction alive,though as you say,for clarity's sake,we could just say 'includes'. But sometimes 'comprise' is better: Paul wanted a wife who comprised within herself -- an aristocrat in the living-room,an economist in the kitchen,and a devil in bed. (But he ended up marrying someone who was a devil in the living-room,an aristocrat in the kitchen and an economist in bed.) Here,clearly,Paul didn't want his wife to be just the three things he says.He just wanted her to satisfy these criteria,among other things. But, of course,you could just say: Paul wanted a wife who was an aristocrat in the living-room,an economist in the kitchen,and a devil in bed. >I disagree with > Donna that we ought to stop saying 'comprise' altogether. Hey, I didn't say that. I said it was a word I never needed, and I quoted the advice of those who make a fuss about it. I'm sure you'll see that stops shorts of actively campaigning for its abolition. By the way, while I'm here -- I'm surprised a person whose English is as good as yours, and who values careful usage as you obviously do, hasn't noticed the universal convention of putting a space after commas, semicolons, and periods (full stops). The lack makes your writing look crowded and hard to read. Their presence would make your writing instantly look more fluent and persuasive. (I hope this doesn't trigger a bunch of opinions about putting *two* spaces after a period, which some people are convinced is the only civilized method.) Then there are paragraph breaks... SignatureBest wishes -- Donna Richoux Hi Donna. Yeah, thanks for your encouraging words and sorry about the lack of spaces after stops. I am aware that this is necessary but am used to flouting this rule, and indeed even the rule that the first letter of a new sentence ought to be in capitals, and also punctuating as sparely as possible, in posting anything on any other site. I have always told myself that I could do all this if it were called for, but have since realised that if you don't practise all this regularly, carelessness can be a hard habit to break. Thanks for pulling me up. I appreciate your concern and will try to be more careful in future. [re spaces after commas, etc] > Hi Donna. Yeah, thanks for your encouraging words and sorry about the > lack of spaces after stops. I am aware that this is necessary but am [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > carelessness can be a hard habit to break. Thanks for pulling me up. I > appreciate your concern and will try to be more careful in future. That looks lovely -- thank you! Odd what a difference such a small thing makes. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > What's the difference between comprise and consist of? Thank you. Only,as far as I know, that 'comprise of' is only used in the passive.You would only say that something is comprised of something else,not that something comprises of something else.The 'of' is wrong in the latter.You could say that something comprises something else.For 'consist of',you would only say that something consisted of something else.The active form is the only right one here.Also 'consist' is only intransitive which means that you cannot say that something consists something else. > > What's the difference between comprise and consist of? Thank you.Only,as far as I know, that 'comprise of' is only used in the > passive.You would only say that something is comprised of something [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > intransitive which means that you cannot say that something consists > something else. Isn't there also a feeling that 'comprise' is used when relating separate parts to the whole, e.g., These components comprise the clutch assembly while 'consist of' indicates the relationship of the whole to its parts, e.g., The clutch assembly consists of all those components --mirage > Isn't there also a feeling that 'comprise' is used when relating > separate parts to the whole, > e.g., These components comprise the clutch assembly > while 'consist of' indicates the relationship of the whole to its > parts, > e.g., The clutch assembly consists of all those components That's the one that Merriam-Webster says you may be criticized for using. See the "usage" note under "comprise": 1 : to include especially within a particular scope <civilization as Lenin used the term would then certainly have comprised the changes that are now associated in our minds with "developed" rather than "developing" states -- Times Literary Supplement> 2 : to be made up of <a vast installation, comprising fifty buildings -- Jane Jacobs> 3 : COMPOSE, CONSTITUTE <a misconception as to what comprises a literary generation -- William Styron> <about 8 percent of our military forces are comprised of women -- Jimmy Carter> usage Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up. It works out that there are two uses to avoid, for those who care -- (1) Don't say "comprise" meaning "compose, make up, constitute," because it's supposed to mean the other way around, and (2) Don't say "is comprised of". You don't need to, because plain old "comprise" already has the same meaning, which is the same as "is composed of." Some of us never dream of using the word at all. Who needs a word where people can't agree on what it means? SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.