Hello Members,
The usage of comprise/comprising has always intrigued me and when asked, more often than not, I’ve been asked to use consist instead, as in:
On the other hand, should of be omitted
Not sure if it’s archaic or ungrammatical or incorrect but there aren’t many takers for comprised of whatsoever. Can someone throw some light with a proper explanation please?
Many thanks.
p.s. how about composed of?
The problem exists because ‘comprised of’ is not usually correct, as it means ‘consists of’ so there is no need to add the ‘of’. However, in one particular situation it is possible to use ‘of’ and be correct (even though die-hards may not consider it to be so)
Take a look at ‘usage’ here:
oxforddictionaries.com/defin … h/comprise
More here:
dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar … or-compose
You might also read this although the page appears to contradict itself:
english-grammar-lessons.co.u … ompose.htm
Thanks a lot. It’s much clear now. So when parts make up the whole, use compose (but without the ‘of’) and when the whole covers the parts, use comprise (again without the ‘of’):
Cheers.