atw: Re: Usage survey: the expression "consists of"
- From: James Hunt <writerlyjames@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:37:28 +1000
Two (dictionary) definitions:
1. consist of --- be composed or made up of: the exhibition consists of
180 drawings.
2. consist in --- have as an essential feature: his duties consist in
taking the condition of the barometer.
So the underlying question seems to be: do people still use "consist
in", or has "consist of" taken over both of these dictionary meanings?
Come to think of it, I haven't heard anybody use "consist in" for decades.
JH
On 16/3/2012 1:17 PM, Geoffrey wrote:
Hi austechies
Can I get your feedback on how you interpret the expression "consists
of" or "consisted of". In the following example:
"Drug therapy consisted of 0.25 mg of digoxin per day and 40 mg of
propranolol twice a day."
do you read that as saying that the entire therapy included just
digoxin and propranolol /and nothing else/? Or do you read it as
saying that the therapy included digoxin and propranolol /and possibly
something else/?
Don't worry about what might or might not be /correct/ (whatever that
means). The issue is how you interpret "consisted of": as giving the
full set of items or a sub-set of items.
Cheers
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
P: 03 9596 3456
M: 0419 574 668
F: 03 9596 3625
W: www.abelard.com.au <http://www.abelard.com.au/>
Other related posts:
