Much of today’s column is drawn from the emails I’ve received from readers.

Before we begin, let’s consider three ways I could write the above sentence.

1. This column comprises comments from several readers.

2. Contributions from my readers compose most of today’s column.

3. I compiled this column from comments sent in by readers.

What are the distinctions in using these words?

Comprise: Comprise means to consist of, be composed of. Another definition is to include. Purists state that when you use the word comprise you’re talking about all the parts, not just those that are included. Nonetheless, the more important distinction (in my mind) is that a sentence using comprise will start with the whole and end with the parts. “Idaho comprises 44 counties.”

Compose: Compose means to make up the constituent parts of; constitute or form. Sentences using compose begin with the parts and end with the whole. “Forty-four counties compose the state of Idaho.”

That sounds awkward. We would generally write “Idaho is composed of 44 counties.” Both are correct. What isn’t correct is to say, “Idaho is comprised of 44 counties.” You wouldn’t say “includes of.” It is OK, however, to say “composed of” or “consists of.”

Compile: This one confuses writers less often. Compile means to make or compose from other materials or sources.

Now. Onward.

Ed Torgerson felt I might have expanded my explanation of the distinction between less and fewer. He did it so well, I’ve copied it here.

Mr. Torgerson felt I implied that we would also use less with minutes, miles, and by his inference, dollars. Eek! Not what I meant.

Mr. Torgerson explained that, “Time, money and distance by themselves are not quantifiable until you change them into hours, dollars, or miles. So, we have more or less time, a lot of time, little time. We travel a great or short distance. We have oodles of or, more likely, little (and therefore less) money. On the other hand, we work many or few hours, we travel many or few miles, and we spend many or few dollars. And the same can be said for weight and pounds as in, He carries less weight (but fewer pounds) than he used to.”

Seeking brevity, I may have skimped on clarity, and I’m grateful to Mr. Torgerson for pointing it out.

Reader Roy Heberger wrote about the word decimate. He believes that we have distorted the original definition of the word, “to reduce by one-tenth,” to now encompass a huge reduction in numbers. Fascinating. The root is decem, meaning ten. As Mr. Heberger explained, the word originates from the Roman army’s practice of punishing cowardice or bad performance by having every tenth soldier stand forward for execution.

Today’s usage does indeed allow “to destroy in part.” However, it should not be used to mean “to destroy entirely.” It is also incorrect to attach a figure to the damage. “Hurricane Sandy decimated ninety percent of the Jersey seashore.” Nope. Doesn’t work.

Mr. Heberger also pointed out two words that I’m sure I have misused.

“Mortality and natality are rates of deaths and births, respectively, by definition. So when we read “mortality rate” or “natality rate” those usages are literally saying the “rate-rate” of deaths and births. It’s both redundant and incorrect.”

My humble addition to this: It’s acceptable to write “death rate” and “birth rate.”

I stand corrected. And grateful for alert and generous readers.

Kathy McIntosh, Boise author, speaker and freelance editor. Owner of A Well-Placed Word. kathy@awellplacedword.com