Number 20
English changes. Otherwise we could still read Shakespeare, and maybe even Chaucer, without a gloss. But we don't have to like all the changes. I do like some of them. I like certain kinds of jargon, like physics terms for new concepts (charm, which means "the fourth flavor, i.e. type, of quark" but now also means, less charmingly, "an explicitly parallel programming language based on C, for both shared and nonshared MIMD computers"). This kind of change is necessary ~ new ideas, new events, new science, new technology need new terms. I like some new slang, sometimes just for its sound, like "mack daddy." But change for the worse can creep in because of widespread misuse and confusion of terms, and this of course we must resist to the death; at least, to the death of the misuse. Following are some too common examples, which have nothing to do with jargon, slang, or necessary improvisation.
comprise, compose
Many writers feel compelled to use comprise even though I feel sure it's a word they'd never use naturally in common speech. Because it's slightly unfamiliar, it feels more formal, I think, and this itself leads to incorrect usage.
To veer off the subject a bit here, I think this is why people say "between you and I" ~ I believe they have a vague memory from grade school about "It is I" being correct, rather than "It is me" ~ so in the hinterlands following the verb, maybe you're supposed to use "I"? This blends in with another vague memory that it's proper to put you before I or me, and the tiny distance between "I" and the preposition means they don't hear how wrong it is, as they would in "between I and you" ~ "between me and you" would sound normal but not proper to many people. You see the distinction between feelings about "proper" English and knowledge about grammatically correct English. When people are insecure about their normal conversational English, they may overcompensate by going for longer words (comprise does have one more letter than compose), more words with Latin or Greek roots, etc.
Comprise is almost the same as include. You can say,
"The United States comprises 50 states."
But don't say,
"The United States is comprised of 50 states."
Substitute include here:
"The United States is included of 50 states."
See ~ you can't do it.
Why not stick with,
"The United States is composed of 50 states."
This misuse doesn't usually lead to confusion of meaning, but it grates on my ear because of the straining for a more elevated style without the desired accompanying knowledge of the words' precise meanings. By the way, Richard Gere played a news reporter in the movie The Mothman Prophecies who agreed with me about "comprise" in an early scene.
That's not to say that the accepted meaning isn't changing, and in fact you may see it defined as "to constitute", which would allow you to say, "Fifty states now comprise the Union." But that is a dilution over time of the original meaning. "Comprise" comes through French from Latin "pre" and "hendere" meaning "before" and "grasp". You can now see that the United States may "grasp" 50 states, but not the other way around.
disinterested, uninterested
Disinterested means impartial. Uninterested means not interested. Remember the two senses of interest. It can mean a kind of curiosity, and it can mean a stake in something. A judge should not have a stake in a case he presides over; he must be disinterested. But he should be paying attention, thus he should not be uninterested.
The prefix dis- "denotes separation, a parting from, as in distribute, disconnect; hence it often has the force of a privative and negative, as in disarm, disoblige, disagree. Also intensive, as in dissever."
The prefix un- is used to "express the contrary, and not the simple negative, of the action of the verb to which it is prefixed."
It would be hard for me to remember and apply these prefix definitions in order to distinguish between words like disinterested and uninterested. You just have to memorize these two.
There's no point in wondering how the two words got to mean what they did and not the other way around, unless you are a linguist (which I'm not). Here, looking at the roots doesn't help me. But because the two meanings are quite different and both are useful, it is worthwhile to preserve the distinction.
assure, ensure, insure
It's easy to see how the last two get confused, and the first gets lost in the mix.
"I assured Mr. Plinket that this policy, which insures his life and pays burial expenses, would ensure his family's well being after his death."
For some reason secure isn't part of this confusion. Maybe it's because it doesn't start with a vowel.
Would the dictionary definitions of prefixes as-, in-, en-, and se- help? Probably not. But you could look them up. There's probably no good reason for us to have both insure and ensure, but memorize them anyway.
Copyright Rhonda Keith 2003. Parvum Opus or part of it may be reproduced only with permission, but it is permissible to forward the entire newsletter as long as the copyright remains.
Parvum Opus is a publication of KeithOps / Opus Publishing Services (www.keithops.us).
Feel free to e-mail me with comments or queries. If you don’t want to receive Parvum Opus, please reply with “unsubscribe,” “quit,” “enough,” or something like that in the subject line, and I’ll take you off the mailing list.
Return to KeithOps.