I volunteered to post this for a friend last night because she hasn't signed up for the new boards.
"Sherry said:
"Anyone who's had their grammar schooled into them by nuns and ex-nuns will tell you it's always the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole
Never never never never can it be "comprised of"!!!"
But language is a living thing, and it evolves continually. This is one rule that has changed in the United States in the past thirty years.
According to the most recent edition of the American Heritage Dictionary: "Usage Note: The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole. In strict usage: The Union comprises 50 states.
Fifty states compose (or constitute or make up) the Union. Even though careful writers often maintain this distinction, comprise is increasingly used in place of compose, especially in the passive: The Union is comprised of 50 states. Our surveys show that opposition to this usage is abating. In the 1960s, 53 percent of the Usage Panel found this usage unacceptable; in 1996, only 35 percent objected."
Of course, that does bring up the debate of how often one should use passive voice. <G> So it's fine to say "is comprised of...." the thing is -- "is comprised of" was always usable. It's passive voice construction. "A comprises B" = "B is comprised of A." Always was that way.
As it happens, <bg> I agree with her.
And having been forced to learn tons of grammar as part of a major, between you, me, and my grammar book, she's right.
Laura
