cheetah

OK, I am anal. I admit it. But it really bugs me when people use comprise when they mean compose. In fact, I have been writing reports at work lately where I use "x and x comprises y" and my bosses keep sending me back edits with "ed of" inserted after comprise. I just do it because I don't care enough and I did read that it is becoming acceptable to use comprise as a synonym of compose. But, I don't like it! Now, I am writing another report and asking people from various divisions to provide input before I submit it to the big boss. Some guy wrote me back with this:

My only comment is to point out an incidental grammar change - "The group comprises 20 experts..." should be changed to "The group is comprised of 20 experts..." or "Twenty experts from a wide variety of fileds comprise the group."

Now, he is super nice, even though I don't know him too well and he does significantly outrank me (though also in a totally different section unrelated to my field), so I don't want to really write back and seem petty. But, I also don't want to change the grammar!

What would you do?

BTW, the worst time was when they wanted me to change effect to affect! I hate it when higher ups aren't good at grammar! For one guy, we used to also have to ALWAYS say Insure, even if it should be ensure! Ridiculous!

seebs

I would write back and explain that this is a common misconception, but a misconception nonetheless.

Give him the canonical rule: You can always replace "to comprise" with "to be composed of".

Basically, it never helps someone to not tell him when he's making a fool of himself.

seebs

I should warn you: I once sent a note to a fairly senior manager at Xerox, cc'ing my office, correcting questionable usage. I believe my email was:

"Status is not a verb, and if it were, it would not be a transitive one."

abe smith

For everyone including us (sic) few who KNOW how to use them, and the thousands who use them incorrectly, the safe rule is probably

NEVER USE *Compose* and *Comprise* AT ALL!....

because even when you *do* use them correctly, some fool fronter- than-you is probably going to undertake to "CORRECT" you and turn your fancy ("anal", self-aggrandising) showing-goff into a damnfool's error.
Sure it hurts, not to be allowed to US to show off how marvellously-informed we are; but your business in writing is to communicate effectively; so do that, by speaking what the Booboisie is willing/able to understand. What the hell --- they'll fuck it up anyway. They will! They WILL! The likelihood that anything you want to convey in print will be fucked in transmission is probably directly proportional to the importance of the message. (This, a subset of Murphy's Law.)

MortalWombat

You forgot to sign your post "seebs, who is now working at McDonalds."

seebs

Nothing ever happened; my guess is that the senior staff had human filters on their email, and the human filter disregarded it, or possibly posted it in a cubicle somewhere.

tribalbeeyatch

But aren't they synonyms? (assuming that you don't work in the insurance industry)

seebs

No. To insure something is to have some kind of protection should it fail or go away. To ensure something is to make it true.

I can insure my house against burglary.
I can ensure that I lock my doors.

AquaVita

I'm already in the house.

Resistance is futile.

Deadbeat

We've come up with an interesting way of dealing with reviews like that in my department.

Whenever we send something out for review, we always attach a note or memo saying that it is currently undergoing internal departmental grammar and spelling review, so people shouldn't bother with petty things such as that, and to just assume that all linguistic errors will be taken care of in due course.

The end result is that we have to catch all of our own grammatical and spelling mistakes, but the reviews we get back aren't focussed on stuff we already know about, or telling us that things are wrong when we know we're right.