The Volokh Conspiracy

Huh? Am I missing something here? The Google-cache excerpt is verbatim part of the sentence written above.

It's still not right. Shouldn't it be "support from black voters" not "support TO black voters"?

I love the racial politics of America. Not.

tvk: I thought about doing that, but then thought it would be more fun not to highlight the typo, especially given that readers know there is one, and would find it eventually. Was I mistaken?

"Comprise" is still wrong - or at least, it should not IMO be preferred. It should be "compose" or "constitute". The whole comprises the parts; the parts compose the whole. Now before Eugene dismisses me as yet another dreary language dogmatist - we all know the type - let me hasten to add my reasoning, which is more than "My third-grade teacher told me so." I think it's fair to call a usage wrong when (a) there's another perfectly serviceable word (compose) available, and there's reason for thinking the new usage is just a mistaken high-falutin' rendering of the old one because of the similarity of the words, and (b) the new usage means precisely the converse of the old usage, and yet the old usage is still indisputably a correct one. Given that you can say "will compose up to 60 percent" with everyone understanding and nobody complaining, why would it ever be preferable to say "will comprise up to 60 percent"? "Comprise" to my ear doesn't sound particular better; you don't save on syllables, and you even have to add a letter. This will not convince anyone who believes that the sole standard should be usage, but I can't think of any other standard under which "comprise" in its new sense passes muster.

Why not just throw in a few "[sic]"s. A very polite and acceptable way of saying "gotcha" and pointing out how at the same time.

Prof. Volokh is correct that the use of the word "to comprise" to mean "to make up" is not new. Whether such use is correct is a debate barely worth having—we could waste hours producing dictionaries and style guides on both sides of the issue. The more useful discussion is whether a writer trying to convey an idea unambiguously and efficiently should use "to comprise" to mean "to make up." The verb "to compose" and the phrasal verb "to make up" are available, unambiguous, and widely understood; the verb "to comprise" in this context is ambiguous and not as widely understood. What is the advantage to using "to comprise" in such context?

Heck, Bill Clinton can compromise the other forty percent all by himself!

So, for those who don't like the NYT's use of comprise, please fill in the blank with comprised/composed:

A. The electorate is _______________ of all U.S. citizens 18 and older who haven't been convicted of a felony.

B. If given the franchise, convicted felons would ___________ four percent of the electorate.


Would you find "made/make" or "make up/made up" preferable in either case?

Has anyone pointed out that 60% is 3/5ths?

A. The electorate is __comprises__ of all U.S. citizens 18 and older who haven't been convicted of a felony.*

*But note, this isn't necessarily true, because some states restore the franchise after the convicted felon has completed his or her sentence.

At the back of the monthly Texas Bar Journal is a column by a judge. The column comprises submissions by various attorneys of misspoken words, typos in documents, and similar that someone felt were funny. The operative "humor words" are always italicized.

There are several reasons why they seem to be italicized, among them:

1. in general, lawyers must have no sense humor so unless they are told what is funny, after having been told they will be told something funny and before they are told they have been told something is funny, they will not comprehend on their own what the supposedly humorous bit was without it having been italicized.

2. the stuff has to be italicized to show the supposedly humorous part, because the supposedly humorous part is seldom even mildly amusing, much less funny, at all.