[projectaon] Re: Mass Errata Listing
- From: Timothy Pederick <pederick@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:36:32 +0800
On 11 February 2010 03:29, Sam Seaver <samseaver@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > BOOK 13:
> > *(er) The Story So Far: Some factions which comprised this huge
> army
> > -> Some factions which composed this huge army [tp: also affects other GM
> > books]
> <snip>
> > *(er) 235: the huge cubes of marble that once comprised this section
> of
> > Kaag's curtain-wall -> the huge cubes of marble that once composed this
> > section of Kaag's curtain-wall [tp]
> >
>
> The use of the word 'comprised' here is legal, and even sounds better
> than 'composed'.
>
> http://www.google.com/dictionary?langpair=en|en&q=comprise<http://www.google.com/dictionary?langpair=en%7Cen&q=comprise>
>
As Ben said, using "to comprise" to mean "to be part of" is nonstandard (a
complete reversal of the standard sense, in fact), though contrary to what
he cited from the OED*, I'd say there's no real difference in validity
between the passive ("the whole *is comprised of* the parts") and the active
("the parts *comprise* the whole"). I dislike them both. :)
That said, I do agree that "factions which *composed* this huge army"
doesn't sound all that great. It's perfectly valid, but uncommon usage, at
least in my idiolect of Aussie English. I'd tentatively suggest "factions
which *constituted* this huge army" as a solution.
Other synonyms: "made up", "were part of"... We could even go for a
circumlocution like "Some factions of which this huge army was comprised"...
I kid, I kid!
* I'm arguing with the OED? Sheesh... who do I think I am? :P
--
Tim Pederick
Other related posts:
