# comprises, comprised of, is composed of, includes ...



## Lizajoy

Hi,

I'm confused about these words.  I thought "comprises" means "is composed of", or "consists of" and appears without the "of", but it's been suggested that it should be "comprises of" in the example below.

I use as my reference my The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, which is of course AE.  I'm wondering if "comprises of" is BE?

The sentence in question is 



> "Our organisation comprises 17 social entities providing services in 10 autonomous communities.".


 
It's a translation from Spanish.

Thanks!

Lizajoy


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Lizajoy,

I've never seen or heard 'comprises of", however it's common to say that something with numerous parts "is comprised of".  

Example:  The WordReference intergalatic empire is comprised of forums in many languages, including Castellano, English, and Benjois.

Un saludo,
Cuchu




			
				Lizajoy said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> I'm confused about these words. I thought "comprises" means "is composed of", or "consists of" and appears without the "of", but it's been suggested that it should be "comprises of" in the example below.
> 
> I use as my reference my The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, which is of course AE. I'm wondering if "comprises of" is BE?
> 
> The sentence in question is
> 
> 
> 
> It's a translation from Spanish.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Lizajoy


----------



## Lizajoy

Thank you cuchuflete!  I think so as well, but let's see if any BE speaker can confirm the correctness of "comprise" and the incorrectness of "comprise of".

Lizajoy


----------



## Kelly B

"Comprised of" is very common indeed, but many of the stuffy usage manuals prefer "comprise" the way it is used in your quoted sentence, when you mean "the whole comprises multiple parts."

"Comprises of" just sounds awful.


----------



## Lizajoy

Thank you Kelly B!  Oh, how I concur!  Will a BE speaker second (or third, or whatever) this verdict?

Lizajoy


----------



## panjandrum

It's August Bank Holiday over here. 
All native BE-speakers are enjoying the sunshine.
Well, nearly all. Now, what was the question again?
Right.
.....comprises..... OK
.....is comprised of.....OK
.....consists of....OK

.....comprises of....... - Pleugghhhh 

There are, of course, reasons for using one or the other, but just for the moment I have no idea what those reasons might be.
I might go away to see if I can find out.
On the other hand, I might go back out to sit in the garden - if the wasps aren't too aggressive.
Panj

PS. I don't really like "is comprised of", so I will look for a good reason to say it is questionable.


----------



## cuchuflete

The forum population of BE-speakers is comprised  of sunbathing louts  Ahhh, where was I...oh yes...It's absolutely time to add Pleugghhhh to the WR dictionaries.  Here is the definition:


*Pleugghhhh* _intrj._ Used to express disgust at the sound, texture, and smell of neologistic nonsense.

comprises  
is comprised of
is composed of 
consists of 
contains 
includes 


			
				panjandrum said:
			
		

> It's August Bank Holiday over here.
> All native BE-speakers are enjoying the sunshine.
> Well, nearly all. Now, what was the question again?
> Right.
> .....comprises..... OK
> .....is comprised of.....OK
> .....consists of....OK
> 
> .....comprises of....... - Pleugghhhh
> 
> There are, of course, reasons for using one or the other, but just for the moment I have no idea what those reasons might be.
> I might go away to see if I can find out.
> On the other hand, I might go back out to sit in the garden - if the wasps aren't too aggressive.
> Panj
> 
> PS. I don't really like "is comprised of", so I will look for a good reason to say it is questionable.


----------



## modgirl

Lizajoy said:
			
		

> I use as my reference my The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, which is of course AE.


 
It is important to understand the use of a dictionary. It tells how language is used by people, not necessary what is proper or correct. What often happens is that a word is used incorrectly so often that eventually, that usage becomes an entry in the dictionary. A good example is the word _jealous_. Because it has been used incorrectly by so many to mean _envious_, that connotation (envious) is now in the dictionary.

*Ain't* is a word that is found in most dictionaries. However, I'm quite sure that every native English speaker will agree that it is not good English and would highly advise you of not using it in any even remotely formal situation!

*Our organisation comprises 17 social entities providing services in 10 autonomous communities.*

That sentences uses _comprise_ correctly. However (and a lot of people may disagree and become angry about this.....), many native English speakers do not use the word correctly, so quite frankly, you may not hear it used correctly much of the time.


----------



## elanabean

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> [s]
> 
> *Pleugghhhh* _intrj._ Used to express disgust at the sound, texture, and smell of neologistic nonsense.


 
Quite possibly the best definition read today... Also can be used in reference to coworker emails who use the phrase "comprises of"


----------



## Gordonedi

Kelly B said:
			
		

> "Comprised of" is very common indeed, but many of the stuffy usage manuals prefer "comprise" the way it is used in your quoted sentence, when you mean "the whole comprises multiple parts."
> 
> "Comprises of" just sounds awful.



I have now come in from enjoying what sunshine we have had in Scotland today (with very few wasps, thank goodness) and can do my duty as a BE speaker and add my vote to what has already been suggested.

comprises    
is comprised of   
comprises of    

As has been said, that doesn't guarantee that we don't hear "comprises of" quite often, and how I pray that it won't make it into the dictionary through general usage !


----------



## panjandrum

I still have a squirmy discomfort about "is comprised of".
However, the only black mark against it that I can find is that it is relatively new, having appeared first in around 1870.
It's dreadful the way these neologisms make their way into the dictionaries  

Seriously, I am quite sure this is another personal thing, no more, and is probably related to the fact that there are two other perfectly good, and shorter, ways of saying the same thing:  "comprises" and "consists of".  I think my brain finds "is comprised of" just a little convoluted.

Does anyone find a difference between comprises and consists of?  Are there circumstances when one is preferred?  I haven't any ideas about this - yet.


----------



## cuchuflete

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Does anyone find a difference between comprises and consists of? Are there circumstances when one is preferred? I haven't any ideas about this - yet.



Hola Panj,

I see little difference.  I think it's just a matter of stylistic preference.  "Comprises" is a little more formal sounding for my colonial ears.  Both are fully inclusive (I love to sneak politikly kerrect phrases in).  

C.


----------



## modgirl

panjandrum said:
			
		

> I think my brain finds "is comprised of" just a little convoluted.


 
From Chicago Manual of Style:

The phrase _comprised of_, though increasingly common, is poor usage.  Instead use _composed of_ or _consisting of_.


----------



## Kelly B

If you are enumerating the parts of a whole, I think they are interchangeable. "Consists of" may also be used in a more descriptive fashion: "nearly one-third of US diet consists of junk food..." (an unfortunate example found in an idle google search for something that fit the idea in my head.)


----------



## panjandrum

OK, I asked the wrong question.
Unfortunately, I now have no idea what the right question was It may come back to me.

BUT - I have found the reason for my squirmy feeling about "...is comprised of..."
I quote here from The New Fowler's Modern English Usage - the Oxford edition. It's not that I am obsessive or anything, but I rather like the way the Oxford reference collection expresses things and besides they are all the same colour so I can easily find them on the shelf.

Under comprise, the NFMEU lists a number of correct uses. I gloss over these (boring).

It also lists a number of *"erroneous uses".* 
Amongst these:
*comprise of*, used passively = be composed of, consist of, _a relatively modern use, first recorded in 1874_ [I _*LOVE*_ this ]

Mr Burchfield, the current custodian of NFMEU, then lists a series of examples of the *erroneous form "... is comprised of ...".*

These include: "Many of these words are comprised of monemes (1964);
"It is incorrect to say 'It was comprised of 20 students' - Burchfield"
And it concludes with the comment:
"Opposition to this last construction is also weakening"
*NOT HERE IT'S NOT*
I _*knew*_ there was something rotten about "... is comprised of ..."
Now I find myself in good company with the lethal combination of *modgirl* and *R W Burchfield*
*Happy days *


----------



## Lizajoy

Oh thank you all! Thank you thank you!

I shall use y'all's  replies as evidence that my English (American) is not inherently inferior as has been suggested by the person reviewing my translations...who happens to be in Ireland.  (panjandrum, yours goes at the top).  This person has been "correcting" my translations without consulting the original Spanish source...


Lizajoy


----------



## cuchuflete

panjandrum said:
			
		

> *erroneous form "... is comprised of ...".*
> 
> These include: "Many of these words are comprised of monemes (1964);
> "It is incorrect to say 'It was comprised of 20 students' - Burchfield"
> And it concludes with the comment:
> "Opposition to this last construction is also weakening"
> *NOT HERE IT'S NOT*
> I _*knew*_ there was something rotten about "... is comprised of ..."
> Now I find myself in good company with the lethal combination of *modgirl* and *R W Burchfield*
> *Happy days *



I don't know this Burchfield gent, but I take strong exception to your *erroneous form* in calling Modgirl 'lethal'.   Your trio is comprised of the Holy trio of Burchfield, Modgirl, and his *Erse*while emminence Pandemonium, whose clan comprises sundry offspring, most noteworthy of which is WMPG, not to be confused with KPMG or any other accounting firm.

Sadly, I must report that my preferred Fowling pieces for AE problem resolution are as foul as Fowler:

Shaw, Harry, in Dict. of Probem words and expresions, says, "Use _comprise_ when all parts are named or referred to and _include_ when only some are.  '_Comprised of_' is a wordy expression. Omit the _of."

_Evans and Evans, A Dict. of contemporary American usage  is silent on the use of 'of', stating  that, "_Comprise _and _constitute_ should not be confused."

I suppose they mean that Cuchuflete is sufficiently confused already and doesn't require further confusion.


----------



## elroy

I'm sorry, but I must vehemently disagree with all who advocate "comprised of" as correct English. Frankly, I'm quite surprised.

The organization is *comprised of* 5 members   

is *awful, completely incorrect, pompous, entirely ungrammatical English.*

It should be

The organization *comprises* 5 members  

_(this is not more elevated; it is the only correct usage of "comprise")_

or

The organization is *composed of* 5 members   

"Comprise" means "include, contain." Try substituting either of those for "comprise" in the original sentence.

The organization is included of 5 members.   
The organization is contained of 5 members.   

Unfortunately, this is an all-too common, pervasive error - but that doesn't mean we should accept it. I think I mentioned in another post that it's my worst pet-peeve.

How I loathe it!


----------



## foxfirebrand

My hatred of the panoply of "comprise" words is purely stylistic.  Elroy's rant comes close to doing it for me-- the expressions using "comprise" are all criminally stupid.

Try *is* or *has* instead of these obscenely stupid pompous words, and 9 times out of 10 it will work fine, better, infinitely better.

_Include_ can be used whether all included items are named or not.  I have spoken.


----------



## elroy

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> My hatred of the panoply of "comprise" words is purely stylistic. Elroy's rant comes close to doing it for me-- the expressions using "comprise" are all criminally stupid.
> 
> Try *is* or *has* instead of these obscenely stupid pompous words, and 9 times out of 10 it will work fine, better, infinitely better.
> 
> _Include_ can be used whether all included items are named or not. I have spoken.


 
Agreed!  "Contains" is another normal, common alternative.

But please - please - if you* _are_ going to use "comprise" (which is your stylistic prerogative) - just don't say "comprised of"!!! 

*general "you" here


----------



## Lizajoy

Hello all, 

I know it's been several days, and maybe you've had enough of this topic, but the "criminally stupid", etc. descriptions are bouncing around my brain.

I absolutely agree. But as a translator, I cannot save anyone from sounding criminally stupid or obscene or pompous, I can only help to express that stupidity, etc. in another language... 

I'll confess, however, that "comprise" was not the exact word in the source text. It was something like "Seventeen social entities give life to this organisation...".  (I guess that almost sounds obscene) 

"Comprised" was the best I could do... 

Saludos,

Lizajoy


P.S. The text came back with "comprises" (without the "of"). There was no comment attached.   Thanks to y'all!


----------



## philipfang

_He Knew The Difference _ 
_After being discharged in 1962, Mr. De Bruhl moved to Manhattan and began a career in book publishing as a copy editor at the University of Pennsylvania Press. _

_Two years later, he spotted an ad in The New York Times: "If you know the difference between 'comprise' and 'constitute,' call this number." _
_He knew. He called, and landed a job at Crowell-Collier-Macmillan._ 


Can anybody tell me what's the difference between _'comprise' and 'constitute'? _


----------



## buddingtranslator

Hi Philipfang and welcome to WR,

It's not easy to explain the difference here. "Comprise" and "constitute" are practically synonyms that mean "to make up".

For example, "This constitutes our entire wealth." In other words, what the person is indicating is that what he/she is pointing out "makes up" or "represents" their total amount of money.

Another example: "The choir was comprised entirely of children." Here, we could also say "made up of".

If there is any difference, to my mind "constitute" makes reference to the end *total*. "This constitutes all of our money". Whereas "comprise" refers more to the* individual components* that go into making the total. "The choir is comprised of children".

Not sure if this is lucidly explained or even if it is at all correct but in general there is hardly any difference between these two words. I can only hope that it has helped you in some way. 

Kind regards,

BuddingT


----------



## lanceb

Well, let's check the dictionary:





> *comprise: 1.* To consist of; be composed of: _“The French got … French Equatorial Africa, comprising several territories”_ (Alex Shoumatoff).
> 
> *constitute: 1a.* To be the elements or parts of; compose: _Copper and tin constitute bronze._
> 
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.


 
This is interesting. Of course, I didn't know this. Looks like buddingtranslator got it just right.

Lance


----------



## philipfang

Thank you so much for giving me the explanations above. But I am still a little bit confused. Who can give me an example where "comprise" is ok but "constitute" is not?


----------



## buddingtranslator

It's arguable that such an example exists because they are synonyms.


----------



## lanceb

Bacon, eggs and toast constitute a breakfast. [= Bacon, eggs and toast make a breakfast.]
A breakfast is comprised of bacon, eggs and toast.[= The parts of a breakfast are bacon, eggs and toast.]

The usage is different, but to me, as to buddingtranslator, the meaning is the same.

Lance


----------



## philipfang

Actually I agree that there is not so much difference between the two words. I have this question because I came across the following passage:

_He Knew The Difference 
After being discharged in 1962, Mr. De Bruhl moved to Manhattan and began a career in book publishing as a copy editor at the University of Pennsylvania Press. _

_Two years later, he spotted an ad in The New York Times: "If you know the difference between 'comprise' and 'constitute,' call this number." _
_He knew. He called, and landed a job at Crowell-Collier-Macmillan._ 

It seems that this is a very difficult question (at least if you wanted to work for the New York Times) so I am wondering if there is a clever answer. Who can help me?


----------



## ElaineG

Strictly strictly strictly speaking -- "constitute" and "comprise" are the inverse of one another.

The strictest usage mavens would argue that the only correct use of comprises is:

The breakfast comprises bacon, ham, and eggs.

while:

Bacon, ham, and eggs constitute a breakfast.

But the "comprised of" usage illustrated by Lance is extremely common, and now acceptable most places (except possibly among NYT copy editors).
http://www.bartleby.com/61/72/C0537200.html


----------



## Kelly B

Discussed at length here and in several other threads as well:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=47429&highlight=comprise
I agree with ElaineG.


----------



## philipfang

ElaineG said:
			
		

> Strictly strictly strictly speaking -- "constitute" and "comprise" are the inverse of one another.
> 
> The strictest usage mavens would argue that the only correct use of comprises is:
> 
> The breakfast comprises bacon, ham, and eggs.
> 
> while:
> 
> Bacon, ham, and eggs constitute a breakfast.
> 
> But the "comprised of" usage illustrated by Lance is extremely common, and now acceptable most places (except possibly among NYT copy editors).
> http://


 
Thajnk you all for your explanations! It's starting to get more interesting, and I would like to ask your opinion on the two following sentences:

Asians *comprise* 60% of the world population.
Asians *constitute* 60% of the world population.

Are "comprise" and 'constitute" *strictly* and *accurately* used here?
If yes then I suppose comprise and constitute make no difference, at least when used to express "making up a certain percentage". Am I right?


----------



## lanceb

> ...The breakfast comprises bacon, ham, and eggs...But the "comprised of" usage illustrated by Lance is extremely common, and now acceptable most places (except possibly among NYT copy editors)...


Hey, thanks for the info ElaineG!

Lance


----------



## panjandrum

philipfang said:
			
		

> [...] Asians *comprise* 60% of the world population.
> Asians *constitute* 60% of the world population.
> 
> Are "comprise" and 'constitute" *strictly* and *accurately* used here?
> If yes then I suppose comprise and constitute make no difference, at least when used to express "making up a certain percentage". Am I right?


I don't think the *comprise* example is strict and accurate.  Asians comprise Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Japanese ........ and other residents of Asia.
The *constitute* example seems OK.
Would "are" be acceptable


----------



## Dimitri Lee

1."A machine comprises a part A, a part B, and a part C."

2."A machine includes a part A, a part B, and a part C."

3."A machine has a part A, a part B, and a part C."

4."A machine contains a part A, a part B, and a part C."


What's the difference between these sentences? or are they different?


----------



## Tsoman

To me they mean the same, however when you use "comprise" I think the most common and best way to say it is in the passive form. 

ex  "the machine is comprised of part A, part B and part C."


----------



## rsweet

All these mean pretty much the same thing except for "comprise."

"Comprise" means " to consist of," "to be made up of."

"The country comprises twenty states."

"Include" has a broader meaning than "comprise." If you say "The house comprises three bedrooms, a bathroom, a kitchen, and a den," this implies that there are no rooms other than those listed. If you say, "The house *includes* . . ." it implies that there may be other things not specifically mentioned.


----------



## maxiogee

To me, "comprise" means that there are no other parts.
Only you can decide if this is appropriate word in this instance.
If 'comprise' is suitable, I would probably prefer to use the expression "consists of a Part A, a Part B and a Part C"
Otherwise I would tend towards "has".

I am imagining that this listing of parts is introductory to explaining something which the user or service engineer needs to know about the proper use/servicing of the machine. For this purpose I prefer "consists of" or "has".

"Includes" would tend to downplay the importance of the named parts, and "contains" implies that they cannot be got at by the user/service engineer.


----------



## Kevman

Be careful with _comprise_--even native English speakers often use it incorrectly!

As rsweet and Tony describe, _comprises_ in the active voice corresponds with _is composed of_ in the passive voice.
The US comprises 50 states.
The US is composed of 50 states.

_is comprised of_ is technically an inaccurate usage, but it is becoming so common that I'm afraid the word is starting to take on the meaning of _compose_ as well. This is too bad, since the word _compose_ is perfectly nice and already exists!
But unfortunately there isn't a whole lot I can do about it.


----------



## Dimitri Lee

Thanks for all your responses. I am tryng to figure out the differences among them because I am writing a specification of a machine, and I want it to be as precise as it can be. Thanks a lot!


----------



## nelliot53

Saludos.

I am all for "consists of", as it seems to be a listing of parts.


----------



## suzzzenn

I think option number three is the clearest.


----------



## Dimitri Lee

Thanks again for all your answers. And another question: would your answer still be the same if what I am writing is a legal document?


----------



## LMorland

Greetings, English forum members!

Recently a discussion arose on the French-English forum that is more properly discussed here.  I'm talking about the tendency to confuse "comprise" and "compose," as in the phrase "comprised of "

Another member noted that I had "identified a point of current debate in English.  Some  people accept this usage; others do not.  The contention is even noted in the  dictionary:  see here (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/comprise) for a quick and  accessible summary of the issue."

However, I would argue (and another member stated that it is the case in EE) that the usage is simply _wrong.  _Merriam-Webster  are not giving a linguistic defense of this usage; they're simply noting a bad usage that has crept into modern parlance.

What think you all?


----------



## AWordLover

Since language is used for communication, if enough people use a word to mean a particular thing, it does in fact mean that thing. Usage determines meaning.

This does not happen in every field, in Mathematics, if many people mistakenly thought that 2 + 3 = 6, that would not make it so. That would merely be an example of many people being wrong.

EDIT: I don't like new uses for words with perfectly good old uses (unless I do).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Let's look at the two examples given:

1.   "a misconception as to what _comprise__s_ a literary generation." - William Styron

2.  "about 8 percent of our military forces are _comprised_ of women."  - Jimmy Carter

For some reason I find I don't mind 1, but dislike 2.  I'd have the President say *about 8 percent of our military forces are women*.  I don't like *are composed of women* much either, but don't mind it deeply.

Interesting that I'm happy with *comprise* in an active but not in a passive sense.  I wonder if anyone will agree.


----------



## panjandrum

Today's question on this animating topic has been added to the previous thread.  It's worth reading over the discussion.


----------



## cuchuflete

Is it incorrect, or does it just disturb some prescriptivists who haven't done a good job of understanding the history of usage?


Oxford Shorter English Dictionary, Third Edition, 1944:

3. To include, embrace; to comprehend compendiously ME. 
4. To contain, consist of  1481.  to extend to, cover 1541.
The house comprises box-room, nine bed-rooms, etc. (Mod. Advt.).

Obviously this is not a new use of the word.  What, precisely, is the objection of those who
would label it 'incorrect'?  Calling it "a bad usage" is a matter of personal stylistic opinion.

Random House Unabridged:



> —Usage note Comprise has had an interesting history of sense development. In addition to its original senses, dating from the 15th century, “to include” and “to consist of” (The United States of America comprises 50 states), comprise has had since the late 18th century the meaning “to form or constitute” (Fifty states comprise the United States of America). Since the late 19th century it has also been used in passive constructions with a sense synonymous with that of one of its original meanings “to consist of, be composed of”: The United States of America is comprised of 50 states.




There is a difference between "I personally don't care for it" and "It is a bad usage".


----------



## AWordLover

Dimitri Lee said:


> Thanks again for all your answers. And another question: would your answer still be the same if what I am writing is a legal document?


 
If your usage of comprise is from some boilerplate text, that is always worded a particular way and includes the word comprise, then I think you should use it since you would have the benefit of precident in the interpretation of the wording.

I have seen comprise in several legal documents, so I guess many who write them are unafraid of being misunderstood.

Because comprise has more than one accepted use, if your context cannot clearly separate the two uses, I would choose a substitute.

The previous point is especially true if you are writing manuals, even if your use is perfectly correct, but confusing, you've failed in your job.

Would you use the term bi-weekly in a legal document? Would it mean two times per week or once every two weeks. Why borrow trouble?


----------



## broglet

LMorland said:


> Greetings, English forum members!
> 
> Recently a discussion arose on the French-English forum that is more properly discussed here. I'm talking about the tendency to confuse "comprise" and "compose," as in the phrase "comprised of "
> 
> Another member noted that I had "identified a point of current debate in English. Some people accept this usage; others do not. The contention is even noted in the dictionary: see here (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/comprise) for a quick and accessible summary of the issue."
> 
> However, I would argue (and another member stated that it is the case in EE) that the usage is simply _wrong. _Merriam-Webster are not giving a linguistic defense of this usage; they're simply noting a bad usage that has crept into modern parlance.
> 
> What think you all?


I entirely agree. In the UK, people who are ignorant and/or ill-educated freqently use "is comprised of" instead of "comprises". It is a solecism particularly loved by estate agents: "The house is comprised of 4 bedroom's, etc ..." To my ear/eye it is no less dreadful than the misuse of the apostrophe.
And it is made worse by the fact that those who misuse the word are typically trying to use what they regard as a 'posh' word to make themselves sound cleverer than they really are.  And it doesn't half backfire! They would sound a lot cleverer if they wrote, "The house has 4 bedrooms ..."
By the way, to those who say that if sufficient people make the same linguistic blunder, that's fine, that it simply becomes part of the language, I would respond that, if the majority of well-educated people do not make that error, then the only language it becomes part of is the language of the ill-educated.


----------



## RolandLavengro

It may depend on which form of English or which dictionary one is using. Oxford English is generally considered to be the most 'correct' in terms of grammar and usage. The OED (Oxford English Dictionary) has a number of definitions for comprise. One of these is "to consist of" - in which case, if one writes "to comprise of" in that sense, one is writing "to consist of of". Yes, this does appear to be on the increase. Language has always developed organically, sometimes helpfully, sometimes not. Superfluous prepositions can be irritable (to rise up, to enter in), but communication is a mutual process - my humble advice is to provide the other party with the mimimum strain in comprehending. If you are not sure of a meaning or use, and you are not sure if the listener/s or reader/s may not be either, then go for something simpler and clearer. That is only polite.


----------



## Dmitry_86

Well, your discussion about the usage of "comprise/comprised" combined with the preposition "of" is really very interesting. Recently this question was raised again at http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1651148 and the thread was closed there because it had already been discussed here (as I can see now) and thus everybody was redirected to this thread. Actually, I find the material gathered here quite useful for me, because I was also taught that "comprise" = "is comprised of". I do not remember now about exceptions (if they exist at all) but I have not heard up till now that "is comprised of" can be a mistake. In order to clarify this problem I looked up this word in two monolingual dictionaries and found the following:

1) Collins dictionary: If you say that something "comprises" or "is comprised of" a number of things or people, you mean that it has them as its parts or members. Examples: 1) The task force is comprised of congressional leaders, cabinet heads and administration officials. 2) A crowed comprised of the wives and children of scientists staged a demonstration

2) Cambridge dictionary: The class is comprised mainly of Italian and French students

How about this? Two well-known dictionaries suggest that the usage of "comprised of" is correct and possible. I agree that sometimes we gradually get used to using a word incorrectly so that finally this wrong usage penetrates our speech and becomes indistinguishable from a mistake. Then some time passes and this word appears in dictionaries and only linguists know that the usage is incorrect. Maybe this is just this very case. By the way, the example with "jealous" given earlier in this thread is a very good one indeed because some time ago I also used to use it incorrectly in the meaning of "jealous". So as a conclusion I think that if this trend is really so proliferating and so baneful we should try our best to combat it.


----------



## panjandrum

Time passes.
Four years ago, way back in post #15 I wrote:


> Mr Burchfield, the current custodian of NFMEU, then lists a series of examples of the *erroneous form "... is comprised of ...".*
> 
> These include: "Many of these words are comprised of monemes (1964);
> "It is incorrect to say 'It was comprised of 20 students' - Burchfield"
> And it concludes with the comment:
> "Opposition to this last construction is also weakening"


It's evident from the examples that Dmitry has quoted that opposition continues to weaken, to the point that this "erroneous form" is now being promoted by otherwise-reputable dictionaries.


----------



## Dmitry_86

I think we have forgotten (or I have not noticed) the word "encompass". I will not claim that it is synonymous with "comprise" because this is perhaps too bold a conclusion, but it definitely belongs to the same group of words:

The (whole) architectural ensemble of the Hermitage (Saint-Petersburg, Russia) *encompasses* 5 buildings (museums): the Winter Palace, the Small Hermitage, the Old Hermitage, the New Hermitage and the Hermitage theatre.

"Comprise" will definitely work here, too. I think "contain" and "include" are also the options possible.


----------



## Nonstar

I´ve just decided to try and contribute. Reading the Wordreference dictionary anyone can find the definition of _comprise_ and see that _is comprised of_ does not feature in it. I thought that if X comprises Y, then Y can only _BE_ comprised _IN_ X, this leads me to the assumption that X is unable to be comprised of Y. X can only comprise Y, or Y be comprised in X. I have been told language does work logically, granted, nevertheless it can help a lot!
Please correct me or tell me not to write such things!!


----------



## stickweasel

Comprises is the _only_ correct usage! Comprises means _consists of_ or _made up of_ or even _embraces_ or _contains_. If you say, "...comprised of..." you are actually saying, "... consists of *OF*..." or "... contains *of*...," because _*of*_ is already in the meaning! It's the double _*of *_syndrome!

Yes, it is true that way to many people say, "... comprised of..." and to me it's as irritating as hell. They are wrong wrong. It's just as wrong as the multitudes who say, "PIN number," which is actually saying, "personal identification number *NUMBER*," because PIN stands for Personal Identification Number. It's the double *numbe*r syndrome! Just because a lot of other people do it, doesn't make it right. Think of all of our idiot presidents who say "Nucuelar." (nuclear) Arrrghh!

Just remember: _Comprised of_ - *WRONG!* _Comprises of_ - *WRONGER!* _Comprisesed of_ - *WRONGEST!* You will burn in the fires of hell for *of of* and *number number*. By by!


----------



## Dmitry_86

stickweasel said:


> Comprises is the _only_ correct usage! Comprises means _consists of_ or _made up of_ or even _embraces_ or _contains_. If you say, "...comprised of..." you are actually saying, "... consists of *OF*..." or "... contains *of*...," because _*of*_ is already in the meaning! It's the double _*of *_syndrome!
> 
> Yes, it is true that way to many people say, "... comprised of..." and to me it's as irritating as hell. They are wrong wrong. It's just as wrong as the multitudes who say, "PIN number," which is actually saying, "personal identification number *NUMBER*," because PIN stands for Personal Identification Number. It's the double *numbe*r syndrome! Just because a lot of other people do it, doesn't make it right. Think of all of our idiot presidents who say "Nucuelar." (nuclear) Arrrghh!
> 
> Just remember: _Comprised of_ - *WRONG!* _Comprises of_ - *WRONGER!* _Comprisesed of_ - *WRONGEST!* You will burn in the fires of hell for *of of* and *number number*. By by!



OK! I new that "comprised of" was wrong, but it is strange that some people still claim it is possible. Now I think many will revise their attitude to this matter because no one wants to burn in the fires of hell 

Best

P.S. Maybe you are an inquisition executioner who has come from the medieval times and will go on persecuting Wordreference members for using double "Of" and double "number"?!


----------



## broglet

stickweasel -  I agree wholeheartedly - welcome to the forum and thanks for such an invigorating maiden post, comprising all the essential arguments


----------



## panjandrum

It's good to see the militant anti-comprised-of squad can still be as vociferous as ever.
It's a lost cause, however.
COCA lists one "is comprised of" for three "comprises".
BNC lists one for eighteen, but then the most recent texts in the BNC are from 1993; a quick glance at the COHA shows a significant upsurge in usage of "is comprised of" in the last 10-15 years.

BNC - British National Corpus
COCA - Corpus of Contemporary American English
COHA - Corpus of Historical American English


----------



## broglet

That's grand, panjandrum, but your evidence for 'comprised of' mostly comprises American references.

In the UK I have often seen 'comprised of' used by estate agents, but in other walks of life I suspect that it continues to be considered incorrect (at least by those for whom linguistic incorrectness is a meaningful concept)


----------



## nic456

I agree that to comprise of and to be comprised of sounds horrifying.

Probably the best explanation is etymology. Comprise can be traced to French comprendre (literally to take together) and Latin com-prehendere. Nowadays many speakers have become ignorant of the prefix, com, and its meaning, together. Figuratively, comprise would indicate a container full of items or items together. This semantic pointer is lost (full of, together), thus many perceive the need to use of and use consist of and comprise of interchangeably.

Hope this helps


----------



## benein

<<moderator note : the following post has been added to this thread.  Benein, Rule 1 is to search before posting a question - enter the words in the box at the top of thepage to find previous threads as well as a definition>>

Hi everyone! 
I have a question. Please help me. 


*[context]*
*<1>* The play _comprises_ three acts.
*<2>* The play _is comprised_ of three acts.


*[question]*
What is the difference between the two?

I guess that *<1>* implies that the play has more acts than the three. On the other hand, *<2>* suggests that the play only has three acts.  

What do you think about my guess?


Thank you for reading my post! 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I'm sorry. I should have searched the forum first. 
Thank you for pointing out this.

After I read this thread, my question has been solved. 
Thank you for moving my post!

Have a good day!


----------



## PaulQ

< Response to post #60.  Cagey, moderator. >

No, and it is unlikely that the container comprises anything but a container.

comprise = to be composed of; The "*of*" is included in the meaning.

"The *contents of this* container comprise 400 tables and 1600 chairs."
"The *contents of this* container are 20% tables and 80% chairs."


----------



## bennymix

Comprise, strictly speaking, means 'includes.'   {no 'of'}
The dance troupe comprises 20 Armenians from their National Academy.

Casually, "is comprised of" may mean 'is composed of", but that's slack, in my opinion.
This box is comprised of wood.   {passable casually}

Paul's suggestion, if I read him, is "This box comprises wood"   {'of' allegedly included}
is very odd to my ear.    Although, "The contents of the carver's locker comprised pieces of wood and his tools" is OK, in my opinion.


----------



## Juhasz

For a descriptivist perspective on "comprised of," the American Heritage Dictionary offers this usage note:

"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 many writers maintain this distinction, _comprise_ is often used in place of _compose,_ especially in the passive: _The Union is comprised of 50 states._ Our surveys show that opposition to this usage has abated but has not disappeared. In the 1960s, 53 percent of the Usage Panel found this usage unacceptable; by 1996, the proportion objecting had declined to 35 percent; and by 2011, it had fallen a bit more, to 32 percent."


----------



## JulianStuart

This subject was covered in an NPR story about an editor on wikipedia who made it his life's mission to expunge every instance of "comprised of" from said encyclopedia.  The commentary on the NPR story is by language maven Geoff Nunberg (link : http://www.npr.org/2015/03/12/39256...d-of-on-wikipedia-one-editor-will-take-it-out ) and he discusses some of the history and his views on the prescriptivism.


----------



## Tony1931

I view the word "of" in the phrase "is comprised of" as an old-fashioned equivalent of "by", a way of identifying what would have been the subject of the sentence if the active voice had been chosen rather than the passive.  Thus "the whole is composed of the parts" is equivalent to "the parts compose the whole"  Both of these statements seem to me to be acceptable.  However, when it is correct to say that "the whole comprises the parts", as most authorities agree, then it would seem to be incorrect or at best not preferable to say "the parts comprise the whole", which is equivalent to "the whole is comprised of the parts" as demonstrated above with the verb "compose".  So when leading with the parts, I prefer "compose", "make up" or "constitute", while when leading with the whole, "comprises" or "consists of" are my preferred ways of identifying the parts.


----------



## broglet

to my ear both 'comprises of' and 'comprised of' are solecisms used by ignorant people - especially estate agents - who are trying (but failing) to sound educated.

Estate agent: this flat is comprised of two bedrooms, a living room and a kitchen
Educated person: this flat has two bedrooms, a living room and a kitchen


----------



## JulianStuart

Geoff Nunberg ends his article (I linked in #65) "But understand this: Every time we avoid saying "comprised of," the pedants win."


----------



## broglet

JulianStuart said:


> Geoff Nunberg ends his article (I linked in #65) "But understand this: Every time we avoid saying "comprised of," the pedants win."


I can't see how it helps learners of a language to regard avoidance of poor usage as pedantic


----------



## kamalaziz

Hi..is comprising of, right? For example, The beach is comprising of 228 rooms.Thanks


----------



## siares

kamalaziz said:


> Hi..is comprising of, right?


Hello kamalaziz,
from the above posts, about 93% of native speakers strongly advise against 'comprise of' in any form, some would probably go as far as shoot you on hearing it.

About progressive form: can you use 'is comprising'?
Again, don't. See here: comprising


----------



## nic456

@siares Please DO provide context. In the linked thread they refer to the BNC, though without presenting any examples. Another poster does provide an example and is given a reply.
For instance, I could use comprising as a  participle: I am looking for a small flat comprising a living-room, a bedroom, a bathroom and a kitchen. While this does use the word you specified, it is the present participle but not used in a progressive tense.
Else I believe it would be good if you selected a few examples from the BNC and posted them with your questions in the linked thread.


----------



## siares

nic456 said:


> In the linked thread they refer to the BNC, though without presenting any examples.


There are none:


Loob said:


> I've just skimmed the instances of "comprising" in the British National Corpus, and I didn't see any examples of its use as part of a progressive tense.


Kalamaziz is not looking for a participle use..
Kalamaziz, nic456 is right, you'd be better off posing your question in the other thread, this one is too long.


----------



## Loob

nic456 said:


> @siares Please DO provide context. In the linked thread they refer to the BNC, though without presenting any examples. Another poster does provide an example and is given a reply.
> For instance, I could use comprising as a  participle: I am looking for a small flat comprising a living-room, a bedroom, a bathroom and a kitchen. While this does use the word you specified, it is the present participle but not used in a progressive tense.
> Else I believe it would be good if you selected a few examples from the BNC and posted them with your questions in the linked thread.


I'm puzzled, nic456: siares isn't asking a question, she's responding to one


kamalaziz said:


> Hi..is comprising of, right? For example, The beach is comprising of 228 rooms.Thanks


No, I'm afraid that doesn't work for me, kalamazis.  It doesn't work on two counts:
(1) there are no obvious grounds for using the present continuous tense.
(2) "comprise of" doesn't work (at least, not for me).


----------



## velisarius

As Loob says, plus:

(3) I've never come across a beach with "rooms". 

Could you please clarify your sentence?


----------



## Beluga99

[This question has been added to a previous existing thread on the same topic.  DonnyB - moderator]
Hi there. Just a little curious. According to some English dictionaries, it's better not to use this word in the structure "be comprised of" as it may draw some criticism. Yet I've seen the use of this structure so many times in news, podcast etc. So my Q: Do you often use it in your writing or prefer "be composed of" just to be on the safe side?


----------



## entangledbank

I never use 'be comprised of': it's ungrammatical in my personal dialect. But it's now so common that I always allow it in any text (by other people) I'm editing. However, I change the even newer version 'comprises of'.


----------



## abluter

It' often misused;  it means "consist of"-"The book comprises 700 pages", but "700 pages comprise the book" is wrong . I think "comprises of" is always wrong, too.


----------

