A manuscript reviewer points out: “Comprised of” is incorrect. And they’re right! Given my battles against related things like the use of “impact” as a transitive verb–I have, in the past, asked graduate students to refrain from this as a personal favor to me if nothing else–I am embarrassed to have been caught unawares.
-
Pages
-
Categories
- asa meetings
- ask a scatterbrain
- books
- Canada
- contest
- cryptic
- dialogues
- disarray
- dork
- economics
- family
- fun
- gender
- health
- help wanted
- inequality
- internet
- kids
- LGBT
- meta
- misadventures
- music
- online wonders
- personal
- politics
- procrastination
- professional
- race
- religion
- science
- sexualities
- sports
- students
- teaching
- too much information
- travel
- Uncategorized
- what does this have to do w/ org theory?
- work and family
- writing
-
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
7 Comments
Water Closet Toilet Paper.
I must disagree with my favorite prescriptive grammarian. “Comprised of” is the future, ask Webster’s. Viva la revolucion! Tell us, though, did the reviewer reject the manuscript for this perceived violation, or did he/she only chastise you for “sloppy editing, poor prose” etc and recommend the services of a professional ghost writing outfit? Because, you know, reviewers who focus on what really matters in a manuscript (and don’t understand the concept of “in-house copy editor”) are my true favorites.
No, there wasn’t even a broader chastising of writing–more like a friendly little FYI. But it was in the actual letter from the editor, not some comment from the reviewer. I read it as borne from an irresistible didactic impulse.
> I read it as borne from an irresistible didactic impulse.
I see what you did there.
The Language Loggers have batted this one around a couple of times. Here’s Mark Liberman back in May:
“In the entry for comprise [in MWDEU], you’ll learn that Ms. Stockton’s negative reaction to comprised of was widely shared by self-appointed usage experts in the 20th century, despite the fact that the OED documents comprise meaning ‘compose’ from the late 18th century onwards.”
Full entry here.
Webster’s is wrong, your reviewer is right, IMNSHO. And I correct grammar when reviewing papers too – might as well learn something along the way!
Feeling grumpy,
Andy
I complement your sentiment.