Check your math. You’re using the “compose” mnemonic.
I didn’t mean to suggest that it was perfectly equal and interchangeable. It’s a mnemonic for usage, not a replacement of the definition.
I understand that MANY people use the words “comprise” and “compose” interchangeably. I understand that, descriptively, “comprise” DOES equal “compose” to many people. I understand that this usage has become common enough to qualify as a battle lost.
But I’m not making this shit up. Google “compose comprise” for many, many articles that address this usage question.
Check your own post. You wrote “Compose = Include”. I included the second part on the assumption that you mis-typed and intended to say “Comprise = Include”.
As for this:
isn’t there a better sign than = to indicate similar but not identical?
Sheesh, sorry. That should be “comprise = include.” But again, that’s just a reminder of usage, not a definition.
Well, it is a verb; I just don’t see why people can’t use the perfectly fine word affect. In fact, impact had the advantage/distinction of connoting physical contact.
But it’s too late to change these things that bother us here. It’s not like Peter Jennings is assiduously checking the SDMB for the monthly rants about English usage.
I agree with lissener. Common misusage annoys me because it’s the people who misuse a word that are changing the language. There was a pretty heated battle over a particular word in a recent thread in which I argued that people were using the word incorrectly, thus making it difficult to convey it’s original meaning.
Well, certainly not anymore. Since he’s, ya know…dead.
[sub]I’m sorry. I couldn’t help it.[/sub]
Ah, Gaudere, it’s so nice to see you again! I’m always interested in your law and its applications! 
Band name!
The beauty of language is that it is malleable. We give new meaning to words by stretching their context.
Personally, I think anybody that would seek to alter or limit the creative use of language should be considered as a Persona au gratin.
Well I asked for it; all those guys are the same to me. I meant the guy who just retired.
I agree 100%.
I just thought the Humpty Dumpty quote was apropos to the thread.
Now you’re just being disingenius.
No; you’re vastly oversimplifying and mischaracterizing the nature of my specific objections, if that snarky driveby was meant for me. I do, in fact, agree with your statement completely. In fact it’s that sentiment that is in large part the impetus of my objections. Reading the entire thread–for comprehension, not just for style–might go a long way toward helping you understand.
Can you say “whooooosh?”
I’m sorry; I was receiving snark on all channels.
But you ARE using “apropos” ironically, aren’t you?
No prob. Remember, authenticate before you offendicate.
else you will find yourself suffering an ignomanious denowment.
Because you misspelled “disingenuous”? Sorry, too subtle for me. It’s a misspelling I’ve seen before so it did not occur to me that you were being ironic. So yes, I will say “whooooosh.”
A misspelling? I thought “disingenius” means to be craftily dishonest. If it doesn’t it should.
(now I’m being disingenuous)
You know, if you think I’m being craftily dishonest, you should come out and say so, so I can respond. If not, then I’ll make with another whoosh.