Comprising and caution

In this week’s World Wide Words newsletter Michael Quinion looks at the problems surrounding comprise. He follows the common usage as described in the COED:

– USAGE According to traditional usage, comprise means ‘consist of’ and should not be used to mean ‘constitute or make up (a whole)’. However, a passive use of comprise is fast becoming part of standard English: this use (as in the country is comprised of twenty states) is more or less synonymous with the traditional active sense (as in the country comprises twenty states).

While recognising the undoubted existence of is comprised of he feels obliged to issue a warning:

it would be wise for a serious writer who values their reputation to be careful of the is comprised of form. It will still attract criticism.

This is the same point that I have made about split infinitives. Descriptivism is fine for theoretical purposes; by nature I am a descriptivist myself. But for practical purposes those who make a living by teaching or by writing for the public cannot afford to row against the mainstream of accepted norms.

Comments

[Pete]

But this is not the same as split infinitives. With "comprised of", there's a genuine change happening: the new usage is becoming very common but it's still an innovation. In other words it was one uncontroversially and universally considered ungrammatical and that's slowly changing (and the change may not become permanent).

With split infinitives there is no change: split infinitives have always been grammatical, until someone one day invented a rule that said otherwise. It's a made-up rule with no basis in English usage.

[Peter Harvey]

What you say about the difference is true but it isn't my point. I am saying that in both cases people -- including myself -- are cautious about using a form that is correct in theory but is not widely accepted in practice.