<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What&#8217;s Wrong with This Phrase?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/whats-wrong-with-this-phrase/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/whats-wrong-with-this-phrase/</link>
	<description>falling indelibly into the past</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:33:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Joshua E.</title>
		<link>http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/whats-wrong-with-this-phrase/#comment-4035</link>
		<dc:creator>Joshua E.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:34:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=58#comment-4035</guid>
		<description>I agree with Mr. Douglass, and his examples highlight perfectly the logical foundation of his (correct) answer.  It's not that 9 percent of the Senate consists of women, but that the Senate consists of 9 percent women [and 91 percent Martians, or whatever].</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with Mr. Douglass, and his examples highlight perfectly the logical foundation of his (correct) answer.  It&#8217;s not that 9 percent of the Senate consists of women, but that the Senate consists of 9 percent women [and 91 percent Martians, or whatever].</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy Douglass</title>
		<link>http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/whats-wrong-with-this-phrase/#comment-130</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Douglass</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:48:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=58#comment-130</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Fun question - I must be procrastinating.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
As with I agree with 2. (e. fiction) that percent refers to something specific, consists refers to an aggregate. Nothing can &#8220;consist&#8221; of something specific - compare:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
A car is made of an engine. Wrong.
&lt;br /&gt;
Cars are made of engines. Wrong.
&lt;br /&gt;
Cars are made of engines and other stuff. Right.
&lt;br /&gt;
The Senate consists of 9% women, 90% men, and 1% other. Right.
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fun question - I must be procrastinating.
</p>
<p>
As with I agree with 2. (e. fiction) that percent refers to something specific, consists refers to an aggregate. Nothing can &#8220;consist&#8221; of something specific - compare:
</p>
<p>
A car is made of an engine. Wrong.<br />
<br />
Cars are made of engines. Wrong.<br />
<br />
Cars are made of engines and other stuff. Right.<br />
<br />
The Senate consists of 9% women, 90% men, and 1% other. Right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joe</title>
		<link>http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/whats-wrong-with-this-phrase/#comment-129</link>
		<dc:creator>joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:03:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=58#comment-129</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;It could be correct. :)  That is, if you take the percentage female and percentage male of each member of the senate and averaged them, it might just be that, on average, 9% of each Senator is female.
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It could be correct. :)  That is, if you take the percentage female and percentage male of each member of the senate and averaged them, it might just be that, on average, 9% of each Senator is female.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy hunsinger</title>
		<link>http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/whats-wrong-with-this-phrase/#comment-128</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy hunsinger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:06:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=58#comment-128</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;That would get &#8216;awkward&#8217; and &#8216;word choice&#8217; for me  To consist is to participate in its essence as a part of its whole, but inseparable, and as such the participants, such as the relationship between the people dwelling in a home and the home.&#160; the home consists of those that make it their home.&#160; Without those people, it is not the same home, the essence changes, and thus the home changes.&#160; It makes little to no sense to use a percentage in terms of consist either, or to use consist in terms of senators, though it would be fine to say that the senate consists of a location and the senators that occupy it.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
That is my take.&#160; The proper construction to me would be &#8220;9% of senators are women&#8221; or &#8220;Women make up 9% of the Senate&#8221;.
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That would get &#8216;awkward&#8217; and &#8216;word choice&#8217; for me  To consist is to participate in its essence as a part of its whole, but inseparable, and as such the participants, such as the relationship between the people dwelling in a home and the home.&nbsp; the home consists of those that make it their home.&nbsp; Without those people, it is not the same home, the essence changes, and thus the home changes.&nbsp; It makes little to no sense to use a percentage in terms of consist either, or to use consist in terms of senators, though it would be fine to say that the senate consists of a location and the senators that occupy it.
</p>
<p>
That is my take.&nbsp; The proper construction to me would be &#8220;9% of senators are women&#8221; or &#8220;Women make up 9% of the Senate&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: liz</title>
		<link>http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/whats-wrong-with-this-phrase/#comment-127</link>
		<dc:creator>liz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:37:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=58#comment-127</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;My first instinct would be that the sentence&#8217;s problem is that there were only nine freaking women in the Senate.&#160; Now we&#8217;re up to a practically even sixteen out of one hundred, though, so I don&#8217;t know what I&#8217;m complaining about. [/bitter sarcasm]
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Seriously though, I&#8217;m no a grammar person, but that definitely sounds wrong.
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My first instinct would be that the sentence&#8217;s problem is that there were only nine freaking women in the Senate.&nbsp; Now we&#8217;re up to a practically even sixteen out of one hundred, though, so I don&#8217;t know what I&#8217;m complaining about. [/bitter sarcasm]
</p>
<p>
Seriously though, I&#8217;m no a grammar person, but that definitely sounds wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Mittell</title>
		<link>http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/whats-wrong-with-this-phrase/#comment-126</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Mittell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:19:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=58#comment-126</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Two problems - like you wrote, the phrase suggests that 9% of the whole include (not exclusively) women, while the point s/he was probably trying to make is about the 91% excluding women (which is not actually mentioned). 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Second, I think &#8220;consist&#8221; is better for lists of things or ingredients ("the batter consists of milk, sugar, and flour"), not a single item or a part of a whole ("one part of the batter consists of milk").
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I think other oddity is that the Senate is a 100 member body, so percentages are kind of redundant!
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two problems - like you wrote, the phrase suggests that 9% of the whole include (not exclusively) women, while the point s/he was probably trying to make is about the 91% excluding women (which is not actually mentioned).
</p>
<p>
Second, I think &#8220;consist&#8221; is better for lists of things or ingredients (&#8221;the batter consists of milk, sugar, and flour&#8221;), not a single item or a part of a whole (&#8221;one part of the batter consists of milk&#8221;).
</p>
<p>
I think other oddity is that the Senate is a 100 member body, so percentages are kind of redundant!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: e. fiction</title>
		<link>http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/whats-wrong-with-this-phrase/#comment-125</link>
		<dc:creator>e. fiction</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:13:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=58#comment-125</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I&#8217;m no grammarian, but I&#8217;ll take a stab at the question.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I agree that it&#8217;s jarring to use &#8220;percent&#8221; in conjunction with &#8220;consists,&#8221; and if we replace &#8220;X percent&#8221; with &#8220;X out of one hundred&#8221; (and the per-one-hundred ratio works neatly in this particular case) I think the source of awkwardness becomes clear: &#8220;Nine out of one hundred [members] of the Senate consist[s] of women.&#8221; Instead, the sentence should be something like, &#8220;9% of Senate members are women.&#8221;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Of course, the real issue is that at the particular college where you teach, the student in question was most likely saying something like, &#8220;Anyone who mistakenly believes that we live in an age of gender equality should consider that only 9% of Senate members are women&#8221;; at the school where I teach, I&#8217;m just as likely to get a paper that says, &#8220;A whole 9% of the Senate is female, so I&#8217;m not sure what you crazy feminists are still complaining about.&#8221;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Oops, did I type that out loud?
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m no grammarian, but I&#8217;ll take a stab at the question.
</p>
<p>
I agree that it&#8217;s jarring to use &#8220;percent&#8221; in conjunction with &#8220;consists,&#8221; and if we replace &#8220;X percent&#8221; with &#8220;X out of one hundred&#8221; (and the per-one-hundred ratio works neatly in this particular case) I think the source of awkwardness becomes clear: &#8220;Nine out of one hundred [members] of the Senate consist[s] of women.&#8221; Instead, the sentence should be something like, &#8220;9% of Senate members are women.&#8221;
</p>
<p>
Of course, the real issue is that at the particular college where you teach, the student in question was most likely saying something like, &#8220;Anyone who mistakenly believes that we live in an age of gender equality should consider that only 9% of Senate members are women&#8221;; at the school where I teach, I&#8217;m just as likely to get a paper that says, &#8220;A whole 9% of the Senate is female, so I&#8217;m not sure what you crazy feminists are still complaining about.&#8221;
</p>
<p>
Oops, did I type that out loud?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jake</title>
		<link>http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/whats-wrong-with-this-phrase/#comment-124</link>
		<dc:creator>Jake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:57:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=58#comment-124</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Well it&#8217;s true that 9% of the Senate consists of women (and nothing but); however, it&#8217;s a pretty ungainly phrase. I&#8217;m not sure it&#8217;s &lt;em&gt;wrong&lt;/em&gt;, but it is definitely awkward.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I&#8217;d probably say &#8220;women constitute 9% of the Senate&#8221; instead.
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well it&#8217;s true that 9% of the Senate consists of women (and nothing but); however, it&#8217;s a pretty ungainly phrase. I&#8217;m not sure it&#8217;s <em>wrong</em>, but it is definitely awkward.
</p>
<p>
I&#8217;d probably say &#8220;women constitute 9% of the Senate&#8221; instead.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
