[LMB] There's a Word for it OT:
marc.wilson at gmx.co.uk
Mon Mar 12 16:33:10 GMT 2018
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 15:26:22 -0600, "Margaret Devere"
<margaret at devere.net> wrote:
>According to my research, "eponymous" is used incorrectly most of the time.
>It's not "Joe has an eponymous restaurant named Joe's Restaurant."
>It's "The eponymous Joe has a restaurant named Joe's Restaurant."
>But there's a lot of slippage here. After things get misused often enough,
>.... Both "namesake" and "eponymous" are examples of this.
>My pet peeve in this area is "comprise." The pieces comprise the whole. The
>whole does not comprise the pieces -- it contains the pieces. "is comprised
>by" is okay, I guess, but ugly. I can't remember the last time I saw
>"comprise" used correctly (or at least what I think is correctly).
And as for "comprises of..." - well, tarring and feathering is too good
"The future is here already. It's just unevenly distributed." - William Gibson
More information about the Lois-Bujold