MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> writes:

> Consider that a processor is comprised of many function units,

Comprises, not is comprised of. A zoo comprises its animals,
not the other way around. "Comprises" means roughly the
same as encloses or surrounds. Anyone who works on writing
patents should know this.

On 20/07/2023 23:26, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Consider that a processor is comprised of many function units,
>
> Comprises, not is comprised of. A zoo comprises its animals,
> not the other way around. "Comprises" means roughly the
> same as encloses or surrounds. Anyone who works on writing
> patents should know this.

My dictionary says this:

"Comprise primarily means ‘consist of’, as in the country comprises
twenty states. It can also mean ‘constitute or make up a whole’, as in
this single breed comprises 50 per cent of the Swiss cattle population.

When this sense is used in the passive (as in the country is comprised
of twenty states), it is more or less synonymous with the first sense
(the country comprises twenty states). This usage is part of standard
English, but the construction comprise of, as in the property comprises
of bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen, is regarded as incorrect."

--

williamfindlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> On 20/07/2023 23:26, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> Consider that a processor is comprised of many function units,
>>
>> Comprises, not is comprised of. A zoo comprises its animals,
>> not the other way around. "Comprises" means roughly the
>> same as encloses or surrounds. Anyone who works on writing
>> patents should know this.
>
> My dictionary says this:
>
> "Comprise primarily means ?consist of?, as in the country comprises
> twenty states. It can also mean ?constitute or make up a whole?, as in
> this single breed comprises 50 per cent of the Swiss cattle population.
>
> When this sense is used in the passive (as in the country is comprised
> of twenty states), it is more or less synonymous with the first sense
> (the country comprises twenty states). This usage is part of standard
> English, but the construction comprise of, as in the property comprises
> of bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen, is regarded as incorrect."

I encourage you to do more research. The word comprise has been
used in the sense I explained for hundreds of years. My quote
that starts "A zoo comprises its animals ..." is from the book
The Elements of Style, written more than one hundred years ago.
In the 20th century misuses in the sense of "constitute" started
to occur, and occur frequently enough so dictionaries belatedly
added that as an alternate definition. But people who are serious
about writing, especially technical writing, are well advised to
use "comprise" only in its original sense, and not in the sense
of "constitute". Patent applications, in particular, can be seen
to use "comprise" in the sense of enclosing or containing, and
not the other way around.

As regards the last point, AFAIK the phrase "comprise of" is always
wrong. A house (on a property) comprises a bedroom, bathroom,
and kitchen, in more or less the same way that a zoo comprises
its animals. We might say a chocolate cake is composed of its
ingredients, and that the different courses of a meal constitute
the entire meal, but the meal as a whole comprises the salad,
the entree, the dessert, and whatever drinks might be served as
part of the meal.

On 04/08/2023 00:20, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> williamfindlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 20/07/2023 23:26, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>
>>> MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Consider that a processor is comprised of many function units,
>>>
>>> Comprises, not is comprised of. A zoo comprises its animals,
>>> not the other way around. "Comprises" means roughly the
>>> same as encloses or surrounds. Anyone who works on writing
>>> patents should know this.

>> My dictionary says this:
>>
>> "Comprise primarily means ?consist of?, as in the country comprises
>> twenty states. It can also mean ?constitute or make up a whole?, as in
>> this single breed comprises 50 per cent of the Swiss cattle population.
>>
>> When this sense is used in the passive (as in the country is comprised
>> of twenty states), it is more or less synonymous with the first sense
>> (the country comprises twenty states). This usage is part of standard
>> English, but the construction comprise of, as in the property comprises
>> of bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen, is regarded as incorrect."

> I encourage you to do more research.
> My quote that starts "A zoo comprises its animals ..." is from the book
> The Elements of Style, written more than one hundred years ago.

"The Elements of Style" is strongly deprecated by actual experts on
English grammar, by whom I mean the the authors of the standard work
on the subject -- The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language -- which
was published in THIS millenium.

So I encourage you to do more research.

You continue:

> AFAIK the phrase "comprise of" is always wrong.

I quote the :::: Oxford English Dictionary :::: again:

"When this sense is used in the passive (as in the country is comprised
of twenty states), it is more or less synonymous with the first sense
(the country comprises twenty states).
::::: This usage is part of standard English, :::::
but the construction comprise of, as in the property comprises of
bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen, is regarded as incorrect."

--
Bill F.

moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> On 04/08/2023 00:20, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> williamfindlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On 20/07/2023 23:26, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>
>>>> MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Consider that a processor is comprised of many function units,
>>>>
>>>> Comprises, not is comprised of. A zoo comprises its animals,
>>>> not the other way around. "Comprises" means roughly the
>>>> same as encloses or surrounds. Anyone who works on writing
>>>> patents should know this.
>>>
>>> My dictionary says this:
>>>
>>> "Comprise primarily means ?consist of?, as in the country comprises
>>> twenty states. It can also mean ?constitute or make up a whole?, as in
>>> this single breed comprises 50 per cent of the Swiss cattle population.
>>>
>>> When this sense is used in the passive (as in the country is comprised
>>> of twenty states), it is more or less synonymous with the first sense
>>> (the country comprises twenty states). This usage is part of standard
>>> English, but the construction comprise of, as in the property comprises
>>> of bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen, is regarded as incorrect."
>>
>> I encourage you to do more research.
>> My quote that starts "A zoo comprises its animals ..." is from the book
>> The Elements of Style, written more than one hundred years ago.
>
> "The Elements of Style" is strongly deprecated by actual experts on
> English grammar, by whom I mean the the authors of the standard work
> on the subject -- The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language --
> which was published in THIS millenium.
>
> So I encourage you to do more research. [...]

I stand by my remaining comments that you snipped.

People who are serious about good technical writing are
well advised to use "comprise" in the sense of "contains",
"includes", or "encloses", etc. I am well aware that many
contemporary dictionaries and references admit other
meanings. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to use them.

According to moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk>:
>"The Elements of Style" is strongly deprecated by actual experts on
>English grammar, by whom I mean the the authors of the standard work
>on the subject -- The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language -- which
>was published in THIS millenium.

The Elements of Style was written by one of the best writers of
English in the 20th century. The Cambridge Grammar was written by a
committee of academic linguists, only one of whom (the late Geoffrey
Nunberg) ever wrote something I wanted to read.

I'll take my chances.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

On 27/08/2023 05:05, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 04/08/2023 00:20, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>
>>> williamfindlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 20/07/2023 23:26, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider that a processor is comprised of many function units,
>>>>>
>>>>> Comprises, not is comprised of. A zoo comprises its animals,
>>>>> not the other way around. "Comprises" means roughly the
>>>>> same as encloses or surrounds. Anyone who works on writing
>>>>> patents should know this.
>>>>
>>>> My dictionary says this:
>>>>
>>>> "Comprise primarily means ?consist of?, as in the country comprises
>>>> twenty states. It can also mean ?constitute or make up a whole?, as in
>>>> this single breed comprises 50 per cent of the Swiss cattle population.
>>>>
>>>> When this sense is used in the passive (as in the country is comprised
>>>> of twenty states), it is more or less synonymous with the first sense
>>>> (the country comprises twenty states). This usage is part of standard
>>>> English, but the construction comprise of, as in the property comprises
>>>> of bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen, is regarded as incorrect."
>>>
>>> I encourage you to do more research.
>>> My quote that starts "A zoo comprises its animals ..." is from the book
>>> The Elements of Style, written more than one hundred years ago.
>>
>> "The Elements of Style" is strongly deprecated by actual experts on
>> English grammar, by whom I mean the the authors of the standard work
>> on the subject -- The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language --
>> which was published in THIS millenium.
>>
>> So I encourage you to do more research. [...]
>
> I stand by my remaining comments that you snipped.

And YOU snipped weighty evidence that you are wrong.
>
> People who are serious about good technical writing are
> well advised to use "comprise" in the sense of "contains",
> "includes", or "encloses", etc. I am well aware that many
> contemporary dictionaries and references admit other
> meanings. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to use them.

You have set yourself up as a better guide to English usage than
professors of the language and the editors of the Oxford English
Dictionary, and claim to be the arbiter of what is "a good idea".

Sigh.

--
Bill F.

On 27/08/2023 18:51, John Levine wrote:
> According to moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk>:
>> "The Elements of Style" is strongly deprecated by actual experts on
>> English grammar, by whom I mean the the authors of the standard work
>> on the subject -- The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language -- which
>> was published in THIS millenium.
>
> The Elements of Style was written by one of the best writers of
> English in the 20th century. The Cambridge Grammar was written by a
> committee of academic linguists, only one of whom (the late Geoffrey
> Nunberg) ever wrote something I wanted to read.
>
> I'll take my chances.

Feel free to be wrong.

--
Bill F.

According to moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk>:
>> The Elements of Style was written by one of the best writers of
>> English in the 20th century. The Cambridge Grammar was written by a
>> committee of academic linguists, only one of whom (the late Geoffrey
>> Nunberg) ever wrote something I wanted to read.
>>
>> I'll take my chances.
>
>Feel free to be wrong.

That's not how it works.

In France, the Acad�mie fran�aise is the official authority on what
the French language is. If they say it's French, it's French, and
if they don't, it's not.

The anglophone world has nothing like that and never has been. (Just
as well, if there were an English Academy, we Americans would just
laugh at you.)

English is entirely defined by usage. Some usage is more typical of
people in particular places, or people with more or less education,
but no usage by a native English speaker is per se wrong.

Educated Americans have agreed for a long time that Strunk and White
describes well written American English, and I can assure you we still
do. The opinions of a bunch of UK and Australian academics are
interesting to read, and the amount of research that went into that
grammar is impressive, but their opinions are no more definitive than
anyone else's.

(There must be a moral here about how one defines computer
architectures. I've certainly run into architectural features that
were not even wrong.)
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb:

> People who are serious about good technical writing are
> well advised to use "comprise" in the sense of "contains",
> "includes", or "encloses", etc.

The topic is more serious when legal documents are concerned,
for example patents.

Let's look at a not-so-random example, US10983755B2, "Transcendental
calculation unit apparatus and method". Its first claim has

1. A processor comprising a floating point multiplication unit,
said floating point multiplication unit comprising:

a coefficient table configured:

to store a plurality of predetermined constants, C, each at
a unique opcode x m-bit index; and

in response to receiving a coefficient selection index, k,
to provide Ck;

[...]

In this patent, and in innumerable others, "comprising" has to
refer to a part, otherwise the claims would make absolutely
no sense (a processor having _only_ such a multiplication unit
would serve no useful purpose).

However, it is highly doubtful that the language of patents in
general constitutes good technical writing.

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:41:06 AM UTC-5, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Tim Rentsch <tr.1...@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb:
> > People who are serious about good technical writing are
> > well advised to use "comprise" in the sense of "contains",
> > "includes", or "encloses", etc.
> The topic is more serious when legal documents are concerned,
> for example patents.
>
> Let's look at a not-so-random example, US10983755B2, "Transcendental
> calculation unit apparatus and method". Its first claim has
>
> 1. A processor comprising a floating point multiplication unit,
> said floating point multiplication unit comprising:
>
> a coefficient table configured:
>
> to store a plurality of predetermined constants, C, each at
> a unique opcode x m-bit index; and
>
> in response to receiving a coefficient selection index, k,
> to provide Ck;
>
> [...]
>
> In this patent, and in innumerable others, "comprising" has to
> refer to a part, otherwise the claims would make absolutely
> no sense (a processor having _only_ such a multiplication unit
> would serve no useful purpose).
<
Patents, such as mine above, are written in patentese not
English; mainly to convey sufficient information to garner
the claims, but similarly be as vague as possible to cover
undisclosed similar claims. This is not a good model for
technical documents, where precise specificity is desired,
far from it.
>
> However, it is highly doubtful that the language of patents in
> general constitutes good technical writing.
<
As illustrated above, it is certainly not.

On 28/08/2023 01:46, John Levine wrote:
> According to moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk>:
>>> The Elements of Style was written by one of the best writers of
>>> English in the 20th century. The Cambridge Grammar was written by a
>>> committee of academic linguists, only one of whom (the late Geoffrey
>>> Nunberg) ever wrote something I wanted to read.
>>>
>>> I'll take my chances.
>>
>> Feel free to be wrong.
>
> That's not how it works.
>
> In France, the Acad�mie fran�aise is the official authority on what
> the French language is. If they say it's French, it's French, and
> if they don't, it's not.
>
> The anglophone world has nothing like that and never has been. (Just
> as well, if there were an English Academy, we Americans would just
> laugh at you.)

Gosh! How terribly, terribly butch!

> English is entirely defined by usage. Some usage is more typical of
> people in particular places, or people with more or less education,
> but no usage by a native English speaker is per se wrong.
> Educated Americans have agreed for a long time that Strunk and White
> describes well written American English, and I can assure you we still do

Some people,
(despite the goading, I refuse to make this an matter of Americans vs
the rest)
who are not as well-educated as they think themselves,
have been led to believe that Strunk and White are the
last word on good English, when the simple fact is that they did
not even follow their own silly rules when writing TEoS.

> The opinions of a bunch of UK and Australian academics are
> interesting to read, and the amount of research that went into that
> grammar is impressive, but their opinions are no more definitive than
> anyone else's.

Are your opinions are more definitive than anyone else's?
They are certainly less to be relied on the the observations
(not opinions) of scientific linguists who have, as you admit,
done impressive research.

BTW Pullum, one of the academics you refer to, is American.

--
Bill F.

It appears that moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> said:
>> The opinions of a bunch of UK and Australian academics are
>> interesting to read, and the amount of research that went into that
>> grammar is impressive, but their opinions are no more definitive than
>> anyone else's.
>
>Are your opinions are more definitive than anyone else's?

As I said in the message you quoted but perhaps were too busy to read,
nobody's opinions about English are definitive.

I can certainly believe there are a a lot of people who use "comprise"
the way you prefer. But that doesn't mean people who use it another
way are wrong. Enough already.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb:
>
>> People who are serious about good technical writing are
>> well advised to use "comprise" in the sense of "contains",
>> "includes", or "encloses", etc.
>
> The topic is more serious when legal documents are concerned,
> for example patents.
>
> Let's look at a not-so-random example, US10983755B2, "Transcendental
> calculation unit apparatus and method". Its first claim has
>
> 1. A processor comprising a floating point multiplication unit,
> said floating point multiplication unit comprising:
>
> a coefficient table configured:
>
> to store a plurality of predetermined constants, C, each at
> a unique opcode x m-bit index; and
>
> in response to receiving a coefficient selection index, k,
> to provide Ck;
>
> [...]
>
> In this patent, and in innumerable others, "comprising" has to
> refer to a part, otherwise the claims would make absolutely
> no sense (a processor having _only_ such a multiplication unit
> would serve no useful purpose).

I think you are misreading the text here. Both "comprising"s
here are used in the sense I describe, as "containing" or
"including". Note that "includes" doesn't mean "includes only".
A car that runs includes an engine, but it doesn't include only
an engine. In the patent

The processor in question _includes_ a floating point unit
(but may also include other things)

The floating point unit _includes_ a coefficient table (but
presumably also includes other things)

In both cases "comprising" is used in the same sense that a zoo
comprises its animals (but also has buildings, tour buses,
docents, etc), the canonical example from The Elements of Style.

> However, it is highly doubtful that the language of patents in
> general constitutes good technical writing.

The legal profession is very careful in how it uses language, and
tends to stick with particular words and phrases and use them
consistently over time. In every patent I have seen that uses a
form of "comprise", it is always used in the sense of "includes"
or "contains". Indeed part of what prompted my original comment
is that people who help write patents should know that.

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb:
> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb:
>>
>>> People who are serious about good technical writing are
>>> well advised to use "comprise" in the sense of "contains",
>>> "includes", or "encloses", etc.
>>
>> The topic is more serious when legal documents are concerned,
>> for example patents.
>>
>> Let's look at a not-so-random example, US10983755B2, "Transcendental
>> calculation unit apparatus and method". Its first claim has
>>
>> 1. A processor comprising a floating point multiplication unit,
>> said floating point multiplication unit comprising:
>>
>> a coefficient table configured:
>>
>> to store a plurality of predetermined constants, C, each at
>> a unique opcode x m-bit index; and
>>
>> in response to receiving a coefficient selection index, k,
>> to provide Ck;
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> In this patent, and in innumerable others, "comprising" has to
>> refer to a part, otherwise the claims would make absolutely
>> no sense (a processor having _only_ such a multiplication unit
>> would serve no useful purpose).
>
> I think you are misreading the text here.

No.

> Both "comprising"s
> here are used in the sense I describe, as "containing" or
> "including".

Yes.

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:26:33 PM UTC-6, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> MitchAlsup <Mitch...@aol.com> writes:

> > Consider that a processor is comprised of many function units,

> Comprises, not is comprised of.

As far as _that_ goes, this is correct. A processor is composed of many
functional units - and the use of comprise here was a mistake; one could
say "A processor comprises many functional units".

But that "comprise" should mean "enclose" rather than "consist of",
despite the latter being predominant in American usage for quite
some time, because a particular manual of English usage, however
authoriative it may have been considered to be, said so in the 19th
Century... I'm afraid the comments about the absence of an Academie
Anglaise and the like are quite correct. English is a language which
is subject to change through usage.

That is not to say that one shouldn't be discriminating in accepting
innovations from popular usage, and cautious about copying and
propagating errors. Eventually, however, a change can indeed
become well-established.

John Savard

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 8:41:06 AM UTC+3, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> However, it is highly doubtful that the language of patents in
> general constitutes good technical writing.

With that I agree.
However if that implies that style and vocabulary of good technical writing
should resemble essays in The New Yorker then I have to disagree.

When one writes technical texts he should never forget that overwhelming
majority of the audience are not native English speakers. So, if he wants to
carry the information in most accessible way (which he should want, IMHO)
then he better limit himself to the most used words and avoid less used words
as long as they have more common synonyms or near synonyms even at
cost of potentially reduced literary quality. The same applies to language
construct - use simplest, avoid fancy even if artful.
The correct choice between "comprise" and "comprise of" is neither of two.

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:29:26 AM UTC-5, Michael S wrote:
> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 8:41:06 AM UTC+3, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >
> > However, it is highly doubtful that the language of patents in
> > general constitutes good technical writing.
> With that I agree.
> However if that implies that style and vocabulary of good technical writing
> should resemble essays in The New Yorker then I have to disagree.
>
> When one writes technical texts he should never forget that overwhelming
> majority of the audience are not native English speakers. So, if he wants to
> carry the information in most accessible way (which he should want, IMHO)
> then he better limit himself to the most used words and avoid less used words
> as long as they have more common synonyms or near synonyms even at
> cost of potentially reduced literary quality. The same applies to language
> construct - use simplest, avoid fancy even if artful.
<
Good technical writing is writing is such a way that a malicious engineer,
task with pulling off the technical specification, cannot misunderstand
the intent of what is written.
<
Key word:: malicious.
<
> The correct choice between "comprise" and "comprise of" is neither of two..

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:

> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:26:33?PM UTC-6, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> MitchAlsup <Mitch...@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> Consider that a processor is comprised of many function units,
>>
>> Comprises, not is comprised of.
>
> As far as _that_ goes, this is correct. A processor is composed of
> many functional units - and the use of comprise here was a mistake;
> one could say "A processor comprises many functional units".
>
> But that "comprise" should mean "enclose" rather than "consist of",

I think you're splitting hairs. I see nothing wrong in saying "a
helium nucleus comprises two protons and two neutrons." Depending
on context, that idea might instead be phrased as "a helium nucleus
is composed of two protons and two neutrons", "a helium nucleus
consists of two protons and two neutrons", or "two protons and two
neutrons constitute a helium nucleus" -- each has a slightly
different emphasis.

> despite the latter being predominant in American usage for quite
> some time, because a particular manual of English usage, however
> authori[t]ative it may have been considered to be, said so in the
> 19th Century...

I think you have your facts confused. "The Elements of Style"
dates from the early 20th century, and was published in the 20th
century. Furthermore the book is quite clear that "comprise"
should be used in the sense of "enclose" or "embrace" rather than
the other way around. The example sentence it gives is "A zoo
comprises its animals."

> I'm afraid the comments about the absence of an Academie Anglaise
> and the like are quite correct. English is a language which is
> subject to change through usage.
>
> That is not to say that one shouldn't be discriminating in
> accepting innovations from popular usage, and cautious about
> copying and propagating errors. Eventually, however, a change
> can indeed become well-established.

My point is not about accepted usage but about style. Used in its
original sense, the word comprise serves a useful purpose, and in
some cases it's hard to find a good substitute. The backward sense
that has crept into the language almost always indicates an author
trying to use a fancy word where a more common word or phrase will
do, such as "consists of", "is composed of", and "constitutes",
among others. It isn't that usage of the reverse sense is "wrong";
it's that it is bad style.

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb:
>
>> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>>
>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>>> People who are serious about good technical writing are
>>>> well advised to use "comprise" in the sense of "contains",
>>>> "includes", or "encloses", etc.
>>>
>>> The topic is more serious when legal documents are concerned,
>>> for example patents.
>>>
>>> Let's look at a not-so-random example, US10983755B2, "Transcendental
>>> calculation unit apparatus and method". Its first claim has
>>>
>>> 1. A processor comprising a floating point multiplication unit,
>>> said floating point multiplication unit comprising:
>>>
>>> a coefficient table configured:
>>>
>>> to store a plurality of predetermined constants, C, each at
>>> a unique opcode x m-bit index; and
>>>
>>> in response to receiving a coefficient selection index, k,
>>> to provide Ck;
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> In this patent, and in innumerable others, "comprising" has to
>>> refer to a part, otherwise the claims would make absolutely
>>> no sense (a processor having _only_ such a multiplication unit
>>> would serve no useful purpose).
>>
>> I think you are misreading the text here.
>
> No.
>
>> Both "comprising"s
>> here are used in the sense I describe, as "containing" or
>> "including".
>
> Yes.

These responses seem at odds with your earlier comments.
It sounds like you are saying "yes repeat no".

moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> On 27/08/2023 05:05, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On 04/08/2023 00:20, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>
>>>> williamfindlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 20/07/2023 23:26, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Consider that a processor is comprised of many function units,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comprises, not is comprised of. A zoo comprises its animals,
>>>>>> not the other way around. "Comprises" means roughly the
>>>>>> same as encloses or surrounds. Anyone who works on writing
>>>>>> patents should know this.
>>>>>
>>>>> My dictionary says this:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Comprise primarily means ?consist of?, as in the country comprises
>>>>> twenty states. It can also mean ?constitute or make up a whole?, as in
>>>>> this single breed comprises 50 per cent of the Swiss cattle population.
>>>>>
>>>>> When this sense is used in the passive (as in the country is comprised
>>>>> of twenty states), it is more or less synonymous with the first sense
>>>>> (the country comprises twenty states). This usage is part of standard
>>>>> English, but the construction comprise of, as in the property comprises
>>>>> of bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen, is regarded as incorrect."
>>>>
>>>> I encourage you to do more research.
>>>> My quote that starts "A zoo comprises its animals ..." is from the book
>>>> The Elements of Style, written more than one hundred years ago.
>>>
>>> "The Elements of Style" is strongly deprecated by actual experts on
>>> English grammar, by whom I mean the the authors of the standard work
>>> on the subject -- The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language --
>>> which was published in THIS millenium.
>>>
>>> So I encourage you to do more research. [...]
>>
>> I stand by my remaining comments that you snipped.
>
> And YOU snipped weighty evidence that you are wrong.

This sentence shows you misunderstood the point I was making.

>> People who are serious about good technical writing are
>> well advised to use "comprise" in the sense of "contains",
>> "includes", or "encloses", etc. I am well aware that many
>> contemporary dictionaries and references admit other
>> meanings. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to use them.
>
> You have set yourself up as a better guide to English usage than
> professors of the language and the editors of the Oxford English
> Dictionary, and claim to be the arbiter of what is "a good idea".

No, I haven't, because that's not what I'm talking about.