Language desk
< June 2	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 3

Grammar help needed

The final compliment of choristers comprised 182 trebles, 37 male altos, 62 tenors and 67 basses. Is that correct or is it "...comprised of..." or "...was comprised of..." or anything else? It doesn't sound quite right to me. Alansplodge (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"comprised" or "was comprised of", not the other. - filelake shoe 07:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedants have for long insisted that "comprise" means only "be made up of", and that using it to mean "make up" is wrong; but the historical record does not support them. The "be made up of" sense is older (1481 in the OED) but the "make up" sense is recorded from 1794, and "be comprised of" from 1874. Nonetheless, the original "final compliment of choristers comprised" is undoubtedly acceptable, once you correct compliment to complement. --ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks both; spelling corrected too! Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-pedantry aside, etymology prefers composed of over comprised of. —Tamfang (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. See Etymological fallacy. (FWIW, I don't like comprised of either). --ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you two are not proposing to use either of those expressions without the word "was" in front. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna throw a spanner in the works here and go with consisted of as a simple alternative to all this comprised malarkey. --Viennese Waltz 07:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... or even just "was" (since "complement" makes it clear that the sentence refers to the constitution of the choir). And Jack, just to avoid misunderstanding, I know you meant that "was" is needed only with "composed of" (and not with "comprised" if Alan wants to keep pedants happy). Dbfirs 21:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a misreading happening here. The two expressions that Tamfang mentioned were "composed of" and "comprised of". I was saying that, in either case, you have to prefix it with a "was" or an "is". You cannot say "The thing comprised/composed of the elements"; it has to be "The thing was/is comprised/composed of the elements". That's if you're using a passive construction. You can also use an active one: "The elements comprised the thing", which is what I think you're referring to, but that wasn't part of the Tamfang Equation. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though the passive use of "comprise" is considered incorrect by most Americans, and by some pedants in the UK. (The passive form has had occasional usage in the UK for as long as the word "comprise" has been used, so the argument is a weak one.) Dbfirs 07:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if I'm reading this correctly, you all seem to be saying that the sentence that I have linked at the top of the question is acceptable. If that is not the case, please speak now, or forever hold your peace. Thank you again most kindly. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are all saying that the original is acceptable in all varieties of English (with the spelling correction). Sorry we diverged from a straightforward reply. Dbfirs 07:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid! The only fly-in-the-ointment now is that another editor has amended it to "...was a combination of...". Hey ho! Alansplodge (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Words created by author?

In the Warriors series by Erin Hunter, the cats speak in English (well, they probably speak cat, but the novel is written in English, for obvious reasons). However, they have their own words for certain concepts: "twolegs" are humans (the word human is never used), "greenleaf" is spring, "mouse dung!" is an exclamation, usually for frustration, etc. What is the correct term for these words? Are they neologisms? Bramble claw x 23:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shazbot, neologism doesn't quite fit, since these examples aren't likely or intended to enter the mainstream. I can't grok anything better than invented word/phrase. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many authors invent words and languages. Richard Adams invented a rabbit language for his Watership Down, which introduced several new words. Lewis Carroll invented many nonsense and new words (see Jabberwocky). It wouldn't be too far from the truth to say that J. R. R. Tolkein wrote his Middle Earth books merely as a vehicle explore and develop his various invented languages; that he was primarily a linguist and philologist who wrote novels to give him a reason to invent languages, which was his real passion. I don't know that there is a better word than neologism or perhaps constructed language to describe such a practice. --Jayron32 14:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not neologisms, constructed words and phrases I would say, it would be a bit much to call it a "constructed language" when it's just a few phrases which are constructed, else we should consider English a constructed language given how much of our vocabulary comes from Shakespeare. Newspeak is a conlang based largely on such fictional context-related phrases. - filelake shoe 14:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two other notable examples would be Riddley Walker and Nadsat in A Clockwork Orange. --Viennese Waltz 14:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of nonce word is probably worth mentioning. Although perhaps not nonce by a strict definition, as such words usually repeat within the book/series, they could be considered nonce for the purposes of the fictional setting taken as a whole. (The article categorizes nonce words as a sub-type of pseudoword.) I probably wouldn't classify them as (plain) neologisms, as that term usually implies a non-fictional and potentially ongoing usage. -- 71.35.105.132 (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Shazbot and why is Clarityfiend talking to him or her when the question was from Brambleclawx? I don't "grok" this at all. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 18:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think shazbot is just an example of an invented word which Clarityfiend threw into the mix. --Viennese Waltz 19:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wiktionary:shazbot, though I was confused too :)) - filelake shoe 19:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's just showing his age. Nanu-Nanu. (the kids can click this link to learn more). --Jayron32 19:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dang whippersnappers. So I climbed out of the primordial ooze. Wanna make something of it? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not as such. I'm probably more primordially oozy (Jack of Ooze?) than you, so that's neither here nor there. I'm just curious about the point/purpose of that word in that sentence, since I've now discounted its being a form of address. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's oozy for you to say. Break out the oozo and let's fire off a few oozi rounds to celebrate our longevity. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the banks of the Ooze, of course. Angr (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooze asking anyway? It certainly isn't Brambleclawx. It's most probably Shazbot, if it isn't Ooze himself IBE (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but ooze on first? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]