Freebie today

Normally I post every other day, but I just ran into another correct use of “comprise,” which I mentioned a few days ago. So this post is an extra, between my usual posts. Repetition is the mother of learning, eh?

This is from the weekly comments newsletter sent out each Sunday from AWAD, which I highly recommend.

Yes, this is a symmetry problem. Any word has the same property if its spelling exclusively comprises some of these upper case letters: BCDEHIOX.

The big thing comprises its parts. Correct!

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

I read the funnies. They were my favorite part of the daily paper when I was a kid, and now I read them online regularly. I recently realized  that I never see a mistake in grammar in a comic unless the mistake is deliberate. Many strips have a row of buttons underneath so you can look at earlier or later episodes. Even the button that you click to see the previous comic is correct. It says “Previous,” not “Prior.”

What caused me to realize the rarity of grammar mistakes in comics was when I saw one recently. Scott Meyer writes a very funny comic. His comic, Basic Instructions, is one of my favorites. The humor is at once subtle, and to me, anyway, hilarious.

Full disclosure: He fixed the goof. If you go to his site, you'll see the corrected version.

You see the mistake, right? (It’s the first “you’re” in the last panel.) A lot of people mix up words that sound alike, and getting “your” and “you’re” wrong is a favorite for sixth-grade English teachers to pounce on. In Scott’s case, I’m pretty sure it was a slip of the fingers since he’s obviously a professional.

The lesson here is to proofread your writing. Make sure you don’t accidentally write something you don’t intend.

“Comprise” is a frequently misused word, a common accessory to the sin of pretentiousness. People want to sound high class, so they write “is comprised of” when they mean “is composed of” or even plain old “composes.”

I ran into an article in The New York Times online that presented them with a wonderful opportunity to be pretentious, and they didn’t take it! Hooray (for once) for The New York Times! here’s what they said, and it’s correct:

The project follows the successful effort by a group at the museum to replicate a far less complicated Babbage invention: the Difference Engine No. 2, a calculating machine composed of roughly 8,000 mechanical components assembled with a watchmaker’s precision.

The machine is composed of parts! Yesss!

Now that is a construction in the passive voice. What if they had wanted to use the active voice? Then they would have written:

The project follows the successful effort by a group at the museum to replicate a far less complicated Babbage invention: the Difference Engine No. 2, a calculating machine comprising roughly 8,000 mechanical components assembled with a watchmaker’s precision.

Now “comprise” is appropriate.

Never ever say “…is comprised of…” Ever! Unless you’re showing someone what not to do. Harrumpf.

Here’s a picture of the difference engine.

The machine is about eight feet tall. That's a picture of Charles Babbage on the wall.

Redundancy and fluff are common mistakes, and I mention these errors in this humble site rather often. Here’s another good example. It’s from the fascinating book, Shock of Gray by Ted. C. Fishman. The book is about the sociology of aging. Here’s the subtitle: The aging of the world’s population and how it pits young against old, child against parent, worker against boss, company against rival, and nation against nation. Quite a mouthful. Here’s a comment about Tokyo.

Tokyo has become the one city in the world where one’s youth lasts longest, while at the same time it is a city where time passes so quickly that Tokyoites are near middle age before they know it.

I found this picture on a page titled "Tokyo with kids - things to do"

All the words in this sentence are grammatically correct. But if you reflect, you might notice some unnecessary content. I call this sort of thing the hard part of writing, because on a superficial level, the writing is perfectly correct. What it says isn’t quite right.

It has to do with what you mean when you use the superlative, in this case “longest.” When you compare the lengths of pieces of string, how many can be the longest? Presumably one. Which mountain is highest? Only one. The point of the superlative is to point out the one thing that is at the top of whatever heap you’re measuring. In this case it’s the city where one’s youth lasts longest, and that is Toyko. You don’t need that fifth word in the sentence, “one.” Take it out, and the sentence means exactly the same thing, and it’s a little tighter, less wordy.

You might object that my complaint here is hardly earth-shaking, and you would be right. I’ll even grant that the “one” was put in the sentence to add emotional impact to the statistic. I hope, however, you see the benefit of reflecting on your writing, and thinking about what you say. Chop out what you don’t need. Your readers will thank you.

Matthew Inman’s site, The Oatmeal, isn’t always about grammar, and he writes rather more profanely than I do, but the content is spot on, and he has some grammar lessons available on posters. Recommended.

This one corrects a mistake I didn’t know anybody made. Here’s the start of it:

Click the picture to see the whole comic