<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/09/2021 19:50, Anton Sherwood
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.70.1631818202.1238.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;">On Thu, Sep 16,
2021 at 4:16 AM Anton Sherwood wrote:
<br>
You mean "composed".
<br>
«comprise» and «compose» are roughly reciprocals, not
synonyms.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
On 2021-9-16 06:26, Dave Sill via extropy-chat wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;">Let's not be
grammar nazis. We all knew what John meant.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I wrote the above not because John used the word (I'll usually let
that go) but because he defended that usage by someone else.
<br>
<br>
Yes, by all means let's use any old word that more or less
resembles what we mean, everyone will know what we mean. We may
as well say "give" when we mean "take", because context will
prevent any confusion, right? Until there's a context in which
two different meanings will fit, and we can't use words to
distinguish between them because, hey, a dictionary says it's just
fine to use them in either sense. Wouldn't want to be stuffy or
anything.
</blockquote>
<p>To me, the point here is encapsulated by Anton's comment "you
lost me at...". I sympathise with that. Sloppy grammar betrays
sloppy thinking, and why waste your time on a sloppy thinker?</p>
<p>Bad grammar (and spelling, but that's another matter...) puts me
off, and I'm reluctant to spend time reading something written by
someone who seems semi-literate. Unless there's a compelling
reason to read on (John C Clark being a case in point), I often
don't. I'm not a grammar nazi, quite the opposite, I'm glad when
people help me decide whether to spend time reading what they
write or not.</p>
<p>Ben<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>