Usage Friday: Comprise

"Comprise" is one tricky gentlewoman of a word. The first time I heard about something being "comprised of" its parts, it felt like I was among an audience of geniuses. But then, decades later, I found out that I'd been using the word all wrong. In fact, I was using it backwards. A whole comprises its parts!

Samantha Garner wrote a great explanation for the word "comprise," and I'm assuming from her last name that she's heir to the Great American Usage Legacy of Bryan Garner:

According to Strunk and White's The Elements of Style, the word "comprise" means, "literally, 'embrace.' A zoo comprises mammals, reptiles and birds (because it 'embraces' or 'includes' them.)" As "comprise" is a synonym for "embrace" or "include", adding the word "of" at the end is incorrect, because one would not say something was "embraced of" or "included of." These are clearly incorrect. When using the word "comprise", remember that it means "include" or "embrace", and you will correctly omit the word "of" from the phrase.

Furthermore, Garner explains that it's not as simple as reversing the subject and direct object:

Another common mistake in using the word "comprise" is mixing up the relationship between an object and the elements that make up that object. An example of this confusion can be seen the sentence, "mammals, reptiles and birds comprise a zoo." Since "comprise" is a synonym for the word "include", practice replacing "comprise" with "include" and see if the sentence still makes sense. Doing this, the above sentence means, "mamals, reptiles and birds include a zoo," which most people would identify as very incorrect. If you want to talk about the parts that make up a larger whole, use the word "constitute" instead. Using the above example to illustrate, the animals constitute a zoo, but a zoo comprises animals.

So with that information, I will hereby attempt a few sample sentences correctly using the word "comprise" (or replacing "comprise" with a better word):

1) A good playground comprises a jungle gym, a water fountain, and at least three swings.

2) Beer and cheese constitute beer-cheese soup.

3) The goat's lunch comprised three tin cans, a duffel bag, and a pencil sharpener.

A whole comprises ("includes") its parts. Its parts constitute the whole.

Thanks, Garner Family!

Usage Fridays: "He and I" vs. "Him and me"

Suburban Atlanta's Star 94 radio station used to have a show called "Steve & Vikki." The afternoon djs hung out with a monkey named Doctor something and played "Can't Get Enough of You Baby" by Smash Mouth all day. But guess what! One day Vikki's radio banter set me straight on one particularly tricky grammatical issue: the old "I/me" debate.

Steve had said something along the lines of "Tom went to the game with my wife and I," and Vikki corrected him. "Did you know that should be 'my wife and me'?" she asked, and Steve did not know. Vikki went on to explain that when you're dealing with "I/me," you should take out any extra pieces to help yourself figure out what's right. So if you took out Steve's wife (God knows Steve never does), what he said would be "Tom went to the game with I," which is obviously wrong. Because you would say "Tom went to the game with me," you should say "Tom went to the game with my wife and me."

This whole "I/me" issue stems from two largely unacknowledged pronoun cases in the English language. "I" is nominative ("I went to the game" or "It is I!") and "me" is objective ("Don't thank me" or "Your clothes -- give them to me."), but your average, everyday American radio host isn't going to think about pronoun cases. They don't care if the first person did the action or had action done upon it. They just want $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

So if you're in a jam and you don't feel like delving into pronoun theory, just do what Vikki does and take out whatever extra words might be muddling the issue. Cases don't change just because you have a friend with you:
"Harry and me went to jail" --> "Me went to jail" --> definitely not; so it must be "Harry and I went to jail"
"Get Felix and I a hot dog" --> "Get I a hot dog" --> no way dummy; so it must be "Get Felix and me a hot dog"
"Jane's mad because of Barack and me" --> "Jane's mad because of me" --> that actually is right, but nobody's mad because of Barack on this blog, so deal with it; there is no right answer.

and so
"With him and me" > "with him and I"

And as a rule of thumb, "I/me" errors only make you sound like an an arrogant toolbag if you're already an arrogant toolbag. Otherwise you're just trying to live, man. Pronouns is whack.

I notice that all my usage posts now end with my precise opinion of how un/forgivable each error is and how much of a jerk you are if you accidentally phrase something the wrong way. Please allow a a humble addition: if you keep a blog that posts regularly about usage errors, you are clearly writing all of this from the toilet and living a stinky, fart-filled life. That's I!