(a pox on threadlockery)

Stuck on 'comprises'. The phrase a colleague suggested is:

"Science is comprised of several disciplines..."

I never know whether it should be that or

"Science comprises several disciplines..."

and what the difference is.

My grammar guide says that the comprises use is correct, and that the "is comprised of" use "cannot in any circumstances be correct" FWIW. This is the text for my university-level English grammar class.

Sweet - doesn't get much more definitive than that!

(watch someone here find a counterexample, but)

First, my new favorite site.

Next, leaving aside the near neurotic fear of the passive voice endemic to Those Who Write, I would say the rhetorical difference between the phrases is small. One indicates, moderately, that the ensuing talk will emphasize Science with a capital "S" in general, while the latter tends to indicate that the speaker intends the rest of the talk to concern one or more specific discipline of science.

/pedant.

And, absolutely no offense intended, but fuck grammar guides. If you don't know enough about how it works to break it to suite your needs, you've no business setting pen to...um, pixel to....

Whatever.

No doubt! it's certainly common enough, although obviously that doesn't make it "right"

Their alternate construction is "consists of," but I think "Science comprises several disciplines" is a better phrase than "Science consists of..."

ETA: DP, I'm all for breaking rules to suit my needs. I was just answering the question. And I'm a student of words and grammar, and I happened to have a guide to hand.

See that, I started with a conjunction and everything. I also think there are also rules that cry to be broken, and rules that I would rather cut my tongue out than break while speaking as myself (versus a fictional voice).

Which is why I said and for once actually meant, "No offense intended."

Aight.

From the free dictionary:

quote:

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 constitute or make up) the Union. Even though careful writers often maintain this distinction, comprise is increasingly used in place of compose, especially in the passive: The Union is comprised of 50 states. Our surveys show that opposition to this usage is abating. In the 1960s, 53 percent of the Usage Panel found this usage unacceptable; in 1996, only 35 percent objected.

But also:

quote:

The use of of after comprise should be avoided: the library comprises (not comprises of) 500 000 books and manuscripts.

However, I think the second one is meant to address clear mistakes like "The library comprises of 500 000 books and manuscripts." That's wrong. However, "The library is comprised of three sections," sounds fine to me.

I'm fine with "is comprised of" personally. However, to appease the pedants one might try different words: "Science consists of several disciplines" "Science is made up of several disciplines". Personally I think "Science comprises several disciplines" while technically correct, is actually slightly harder for the average reader to understand, while the other two phrasings above (and "is comprised of" for that matter) are more easily understood.

Again, rhetoric, as opposed to its handmaiden grammar is designed not just to impart meaning, but also intention. What is the intention of this talk?

"Science's got lotsa..."

quote:

Originally posted by digitalprimate:
And, absolutely no offense intended, but fuck grammar guides. If you don't know enough about how it works to break it to suite your needs, you've no business setting pen to...um, pixel to....

Whatever.

True, grammar guides shouldn't be treated as unbreakable rulebooks. That's why they're called guides. On the other hand, where is one supposed to learn enough about how it works if not from guides and textbooks? Osmosis from good writing is fine, but sometimes you want something a bit more succinct, no?

It's not actually a talk, but a rationale statement for the study of science in school (grades kindergarten to 10). So it's meant to be a general introduction to the nature of science for a teacher audience - so basically lay language but we can assume literacy

I'm happy with 'comprises', since I think 'consists of' might be a bit limiting and 'made up of' has the unfortunate connotation that science is 'made up'

I'm enumerating science (for school purposes) as physics, chemistry, biology and 'earth and space sciences', with nods to the 'new sciences' like nanotech, biotech, cybernetics etc later on.

Actually, ya know what? I think I'ma go with 'is made up of' after all.

And thanks all, as always

(ok, now I'm just pumping to keep my postcount ahead of colin's)

Ok, Lit and osmosis: Faulkner and Womack.

Or reading along with RSC while listening to the original recordings.

That's all I have to say about that.

Yes, it's important, people, because if Bravus fucks this up, our kids get left with being taught that women were scrimshawed from the rib of a dude who was made from wet dirt.

We're all counting on him.

Bravus. this Op-Ed piece in the NYT might be of interest to you

That's wonderful, Mme Minx - bookmarked and shared!

Swell piece. Thanks for sharing Minx! Gonna share it with those who don't read the Times.