Does the whole always "comprise" the parts of something, and not the other way around? [closed]

Solution 1:

Since it’s necessarily hierarchical, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the relation is symmetric, even if there is only one part, and traditionally the whole only comprises the parts. However, saying a whole “is comprised of” its parts, suggesting that the parts instead comprise the whole, is common enough in usage today that many dictionaries consider it a valid, if opposite, definition of the word:

• Merriam-Webster
• Collins
• Cambridge
• Lexico

Simply put, the traditional definition is similar to “contain”, while the newer, sometimes-controversial definition is synonymous with “compose”. A whole contains (is composed of) parts, parts compose (are contained by) a whole.

Some style guides, e.g. those of The Guardian & The Observer, Reuters, and The Times, do still advise against the latter or consider it incorrect.

Wiktionary has more details, including a note specifically on patents.

Incidentally, you’re right to think of comprendre, as “comprise” does indeed come from compris(e), its past participle.