I Just Got Wise to Comprise

I Just Got Wise to Comprise I Just Got Wise to â€Å"Comprise† I Just Got Wise to â€Å"Comprise† By Mark Nichol I have a confession to make. I’ve been doing it wrong all these years. Throughout my long editing career, I have corrected writers who erroneously use the word comprise, as in â€Å"The federal government is comprised of the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches.† Comprise means â€Å"to include, to be made up of, to constitute,† so what I’ve always considered appropriate here is consists: â€Å"The federal government consists of the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches.† â€Å"Is comprised of† wrong. â€Å"Consists of† right. So far, so good. But though I usually follow the advice of various writing and editing guides that recommend, because of the perils of comprise, avoiding the use of the word altogether, I occasionally resort to it in my own writing not in the erroneous usage shown above, but on its own. However, as I discovered just today while working on a post about problem words, even then, I’ve been using it wrong all along. For some reason, somewhere along the line, I misread the dictum that when it comes to comprise, the whole comprises the parts. (â€Å"The federal government comprises the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches.†) Instead, I’ve always constructed the sentence the wrong way. (â€Å"The executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches comprise the federal government.†) See for yourself. Search for comprise on this site. I’ll wait. I (along with other DailyWritingTips.com contributors) have routinely gotten it backward. How could I misunderstand that rule in all the grammar guides I’ve read? I readily admit that I have not yet mastered the English language. While editing and while writing alike, I have to look things up all the time but I thought I had this one down. Now, you can be sure, I really do have it down (though I expect that I’ll start shaking uncontrollably every time I see . . . that word . . . and from here on out, because of this painful revelation, I’ll probably recast sentences with . . . that word . . . every time I see it- and, it should go without saying, refrain from using it myself. So, what’s the point of this post? For one thing, I want to acknowledge my error. On this site, I both prescribe and describe many rules about English usage and grammar, and I almost invariably stand by my statements when a visitor, in a comment, challenges me (or when I admit that in a given case, perhaps we’re both right). But when I’m wrong, I have to say so. I’m wrong. But there’s more to this issue: Merriam-Webster’s Online points out in a usage note that . . . that word . . . is increasingly used incorrectly (both in the reversal of â€Å"the whole . . . the parts† and in the phrasing â€Å"is . . . of†), but it advises readers against following that trend because â€Å"you may be subject to criticism for doing so.† (Oh, so William Styron can get away with it, but I can’t?) My main point is this: The English language is in flux. It always has been (at least since its inception), and it always will be (at least until its extinction). Just as languages evolve from one species to another Anglo-Saxon becomes Middle English becomes Modern English they are always, within themselves, in turmoil, and we suffer along with them. Merriam-Webster’s print and online dictionaries, in general, have a don’t-sweat-it approach when it comes to iffy usage, but my philosophy has always been to accept the dynamism of language without surrendering to usage that is both ephemeral and erroneous or that may someday be accepted but is still considered substandard in formal writing. Standards in language are like those in law: We have to be able to get along, and just as if each of us does whatever we want to in life, community shall cease, disregarding writing rules as they stand at the time will render us unable to communicate. So, when it comes to all right, I’ll say it comprise, the whole comprises the parts, not the other way around. Comprise is a one-way street. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Misused Words category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Comparative Forms of AdjectivesProved vs. Proven10 Humorous, Derisive, or Slang Synonyms for â€Å"Leader† or â€Å"Official†

The War Against Drugs Essays - Drug Control Law, Drug Culture

The War Against Drugs Essays - Drug Control Law, Drug Culture The War Against Drugs Naufel Tajudeen Crimes, Drugs and Policy The War Against Drugs In this country, we are locked in war we simply cannot win. We strive to protect over 10,000 miles of border, against enemies who are driven by the lure of an obscene profit. We have fought this a version of this war before, and have lost. All that has really resulted from this war is the overcrowding of prisons, the expansion of law enforcement's ability to encroach on the personal lives of ordinary citizens, and paranoia and distrust. I am referring to the war on drugs. As time goes on, it becomes more and more evident that the war on drugs is as useless as prohibition was almost 80 years ago. Now it has become a point of pride for our elected officials, who use the war as a re-election tool. To most people the fiscal reasons for ending the war are the most convincing. For example, it costs over $30,000 per year to house a prisoner - this does not include processing and legal fees, only the actual prison costs - food, w ater, electricity and guards. There are over 1.5 million non-violent drug law offenders in prison right now, and this number is increasing daily. That means we are spending a minimum of $45 billion per year keeping former tax-paying citizens, most of whom had jobs and were contributing to the economy in some way, locked up with murderers and rapists. When these people get out of jail, they will have criminal records, which will make it nearly impossible to get a decent job and a grudge against the government and society in general. In addition, we spend $37 billion per year funding the police efforts and interdiction, and recent evidence suggests the CIA have been involved in drug-trafficking to fund its own private wars. Currently there is over $150 billion worth of drug traffic that remains untaxed. If one figures a tax rate of 15%, that is a total of $22.5 billion of taxes that America doesn't see. The bottom-line? The U.S. Treasury estimates America wastes a minimum of $104.5 bi llion per year fighting a war that can not be won, while crime rates continue to rise (because of the huge profits made possible by the risks involved in the drug trade as drugs remain illegal), and the quality of education, medical care and environmental protection falls due to lack of money in the budget. There are also moral dilemmas in declaring war on drugs and their users. Firstly, drug use or abuse is a medical and social problem not a criminal problem, yet we think we're solving the problem by throwing people in jail. The logic seems to be, maybe if we just take their life away, confiscate all of their personal property, ruin their reputation and self-respect, put them in jail with the worst elements of society - murderers, thieves and rapists, where they will most likely be beaten and/or raped repeatedly they will see the error of their ways. Not a very enlightened sentiment. Also bare in mind, nicotine, caffeine and alcohol are all drugs. Nicotine is one of the most addict ive drugs known to man, behind substances like heroin. Cigarettes kill over 300,000 people every year. Alcohol kills over 120,000 people every year. Alcohol has been linked to men beating their wives and children. In contrast, marijuana has a recorded history that dates back over 4000 years, and has never killed anyone in the direct way alcohol does. The DEA's own Administrative Law Judge, after reviewing the evidence, called marijuana ...one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man... It's been said that the first casualty in any war is truth. That sentiment is seen nowhere as clearly as in the war on drugs. The government and special interests have been running this war for over 50 years now. The government spews propaganda as truth, to cover their collective backsides, which creates distrust and unrest, and breeds contempt and disrespect in our children. An example - We have uniformed police officers coming into our classrooms telling kids that marijuana is mo re dangerous than alcohol. History and scientific evidence prove that it

Examine the view that dividends are irrelevant to rational investors Assignment

Examine the view that dividends are irrelevant to rational investors when considering the value of shares from a theoretical and empirical perspective - Assignment Example Primarily, when firms make enormous profits, the managers can either decide to use it for expansion by investing in new projects or pay it to the shareholders in the form of dividends. The dividend policy usually guides this process. Dividend policy is the set of guidelines or principles that companies adopt to decide the amount of the profits that shareholders are to receive (Miller and Modigliani, 1961). Even though, the business uses these sets of principles to determine the value of the dividend the decision on whether to pay the dividends or not lies in the board’s decision. In fact, when the board of directors declares the dividends to be paid it becomes a debt to the corporation and cannot be recanted or rescinded quickly. Dividends can either be paid on temporary or permanent basis or sometimes it can be paid once or twice a year. Deangelo (1995) argues that, investors are usually interested not only in the stability of this payment but also the level of dividend payment. From this perspective, therefore, the managers should be aware of the impacts of unexpected changes in the dividend payment to the potential investors. Both the existing investors and potential investors are affected by the changes since such uncertainties could alienate them from investing with the organization. According to Bhattacharya (1979), unstable dividend payment aspect may negatively influence the perception of the investor based on the long term company’s performance in the financial markets. Even though, most economists believe that it is the value and stability of payment of dividends that the investors should rely on while making decisions; research ascertains that this is irrelevant and should warrants sidelining. Many from other schools of thought including Miller and Modigliani believe that what the company pays in the form of a dividend is totally