[projectaon] Re: Mass Errata Listing
- From: "David Davis" <feline1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:11:58 -0000
To be honest, the sense in which Joe Dever used the word sounds entirely
natural to me and I would imagine it did to Dever too, as neither of us had
checked
with the OED to find out that it was "wrong".
----- Original Message -----
From: Timothy Pederick
To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:36 PM
Subject: [projectaon] Re: Mass Errata Listing
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
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:
