|
 Readers
should be aware by now that I have done my utmost to eschew exegetical
pedantry in this column — not to mention periphrastic pomposity. So we
wouldn’t want my self-discipline to weaken at this late stage in our
linguistics game, would we?
And yet .
. . and yet . . .
There
comes a time when all good logophiles must struggle to their aching feet
and answer the barely audible call of
civilisation. A call, I might add, that is receding faster as we speak.
I bet
that just one look at the following list will have you deducing what’s
in the wind here:
compose
comprise
consist
constitute.
Yes, I
know I’m not the first to bemoan the misuse of these words (and I sure
won’t be the last), but I can restrain myself no longer.
Stand by
a for a short rant.
I’ll
begin with the swelling miasma shrouding consist and comprise.
This misunderstanding ranks second only to that of one of my other
personal pet peeves: imply (speaker) versus infer
(listener).
The
current situation is mainly the result of the mistaken formation of
comprise of on the analogy of consist of. So on a certain Web
site we meet
Which
modern day countries did the Roman Empire comprise of?
Likewise
at another site:
Our
panel of translators comprise of at least 5 translators for each
language.
A third
site provides an exceptional mixture:
A
TFFO Premiership squad shall consist of 18 players and must comprise of
2 goalkeepers, 3 full-backs, 3 centre-backs, 6 midfielders and 4
strikers.
A
Champions League squad shall consist of 18 players and must comprise of
2 goalkeepers, 6 defenders, 6 midfielders and 4 strikers.
A
Championship squad shall consist of 18 players and must comprise 2
goalkeepers, 6 defenders, 6 midfielders and 4 strikers.
(This
particular game ended with a final goal score of consist of: 3
out of 3 and comprise: 1 out of 3.)
The
easiest way to preserve the correct usage is to remember that consist
of means “be composed of” and the preposition-less comprise
means “contain”.
Mind you,
Pam Peters in her Cambridge Australian English Style Guide (ISBN:
0 521 57634 2, paperback) points out that a “mirror-image” meaning of
comprise now exists. It occurs when a sentence begins with the parts
rather than the whole:
The
meaning of 'comprise' . . . depends on whatever the writer makes its
subject.
Her
examples make it clear:
The
book comprises three sections.
and
Three
sections comprise the book.
Now, a
question for the language antiquarians among us. Is there still a place
in modern English for consist in?
Short
answer: only in very formal writing. According to Peters, the
distinction between consist in and consist of arose only
in the 19th century. She gives these examples:
His
argument consists in casting aspersions at all previous work in the
field
and
The
kit consists of scissors, thread and sewing cards.
As her
examples show, the difference is one of conceptual versus tangible. So
we use consist in
when pinpointing
.
. . the (usually abstract) principle of which underlies something
and consist of when
specifying
.
. . the several (usually physical) components of something.
Next, let
me write a few words on constitute in relation to comprise
and consist.
Like
others before him (and after), Eric Partridge (Usage and Abusage
(1947+), sees comprise as meaning “to contain”, and constitute
as mean “to form”, “to make up”, “to compose”.
As for
consist of versus constitute, he quotes word-lover
Maurice H. Weesen’s Words Confused and Misused (1932?):
A
whole consists of parts; the parts constitute the whole.
Sir
Ernest Gowers, in his Complete Plain Words (1948+) differentiates
between comprise and include:
The
difference between comprise and include is that comprise is better when
all the components are enumerated and include when only some of them
are.
Perhaps
all the above can be summarised in a table.
Try this:
| |
|
Parts/Whole |
Abstract/Concrete |
All/Some |
| |
compose |
parts |
— |
— |
| |
comprise (a) |
parts |
— |
all |
| |
comprise (b) |
whole |
— |
— |
| |
consist in |
whole |
abstract |
— |
| |
consist of |
whole |
concrete |
— |
| |
constitute |
parts |
— |
— |
| |
include |
parts |
— |
some |
Finally,
here’s something startling yours truly learned only while researching
this topic. On top of everything else, consist can be a noun.
Surely
not?
Yes, it’s
true, but only if you’re talking about trains.
In a
railway context a consist refers to a collection of rail cars
coupled together to make-up a train for service.
So, where
to from here?
Well,
with your gentle encouragement, I may as well keep my eyes peeled for
any other English worth shuddering at. I suppose there must be some
somewhere. |
