Comprised of a question

Question

The first direct elections to the European Parliament were held in 1979. But the origins of the parliament lie far back in the Treaty of Paris of 1951, which created a European Common Assembly, which was then comprised of appointed national MPs.
. . . which then comprised appointed national MPs.
Never sure if use of "comprised of" is good, bad or arbitrary.
Advice please?
-Jeremy Stanford

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]The first direct elections to the European Parliament were held in 1979. But the origins of the parliament lie far ... . . which then comprised appointed national MPs. Never sure if use of "comprised of" is good, bad or arbitrary.[/nq]
http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/chref/chref.py/main?query=comprised&title=21st

comprise
When you say that A comprises Bs, you mean that Bs are the parts or elements of A:
? The village school comprises one old building dating back to 1868 and two modern buildings.
Because it means the same as consist of, it is sometimes confused with this and followed by 'of', but this use is ungrammatical:

Ray.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]The first direct elections to the European Parliament were held ... if use of "comprised of" is good, bad or arbitrary.[/nq]
[nq:1]http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/chref/chref.py/main?query= comprised&title=21st comprise When you say that A comprises Bs, you mean that Bs are the parts or elements of ... the same as consist of, it is sometimes confused with this and followed by 'of', but this use is ungrammatical:[/nq]
Interestingly or maybe not and in relation to the recent subthread on patent claim drafting, there is a very important difference between "comprising" and "consisting of" as terms of art in patent law.
"A sandwich comprising two pieces of bread, peanut butter, and jelly."
"Comprising" means "having these elements, but not excluding the presence of others". Thus, this claim reads on an ordinary peanut- butter-and-jelly sandwich, but also reads on, e.g., a triple-decker peanut-butter-and-jelly-and-banana sandwich.
"A sandwich consisting of two pieces of bread, peanut butter, and jelly."
"Consisting of" means "having these elements, and no others". Thus, this claim reads only on an ordinary peanut-butter-and-jelly- sandwich, and not on, inter alia, a triple-decker peanut-butter-and- jelly-and-banana sandwich.
A good claim drafter would only use "consisting of" if the exclusion of other elements was necessary to distinguish the prior art. And even in such a situation, it would be better to draft the claim in such a way to exclude only those elements that are necessary to avoid the prior art, rather than all possible elements.
There is also "consisting essentially of", which differs from "consisting of", but this subtlety is probably not of interest here.

Mike Nitabach

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]The first direct elections to the European Parliament were held in 1979. But the origins of the parliament lie far ... which then comprised appointed national MPs. Never sure if use of "comprised of" is good, bad or arbitrary. Advice please?[/nq]
This is how MWCD10 looks at it (pay attention to the usage note at the bottom):
Main Entry: com·prise
Pronunciation: k&m-'prIz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): com·prised; com·pris·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French compris, past participle of comprendre, from Latin comprehendere

1 : to include especially within a particular scope

2 : to be made up of

3 : COMPOSE, CONSTITUTE
usage Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense
3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose asafer synonym such as compose or make up.

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]There is also "consisting essentially of", which differs from "consisting of", but this subtlety is probably not of interest here.[/nq]
My recent favorite bit of Patentese is "substantially each", as in "attaching substantially each frobnitz to a thingamajig" or (more likely in my patents) "computing a score for substantially each record". This gets around the problem that there might be good reasons not to do it for all of them (or that it might be impossible to do it for some of them) but that the basic notion is that it holds in all cases except where there's a good reason not to. And you can't get around the claim simply by not doing it for some of them.

Evan Kirshenbaum + HP Laboratories >We never met anyone who believed in
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 >fortune cookies. That's astounding.Palo Alto, CA 94304 >Belief in the precognitive powers

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]The first direct elections to the European Parliament were held in 1979. But the origins of the parliament lie far ... . . which then comprised appointed national MPs. Never sure if use of "comprised of" is good, bad or arbitrary.[/nq]
Use "consisted of" or "was composed of".

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Comprised of a question

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions