Talk:consist

RFV discussion: August–November 2017
Rfv-sense" To be

I split the previous sense into two senses, because exist and be are grammatically distinct. Or perhaps some philosophical sense, synonymous with exist was intended. If so, such a sense makes a poor definiens in a dictionary for normal dictionary users.

The existing usage example is a translation of Montaigne which seems a poor example indeed of either sense. DCDuring (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have added two cites, but I am dubious. I am more inclined that they are merely typos that omitted the "of". Kiwima (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

2010 citation from Steven E. Clay
I have removed this from an obsolete sense in the entry:



In modern English something consists of something else, not merely consists something. The above to me is clearly an error since Clay also uses the normal form in the same book, e.g. "The auxiliary engineer battalion was a general purpose organization. It consisted of a headquarters, a headquarters and service platoon, and four line companies." Equinox ◑ 21:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * https://oed.com/oed2/00047915 --Backinstadiums (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You can't just link me to a huge OED page without any context. You need to say something like "sense 4 contradicts your statement". So...? Equinox ◑ 03:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

to be compatible or consistent; accord
(intransitive) to be compatible or consistent; accord --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The difference in meaning between “to consist in” and “to consist of (something)”
It seems to me that the distinction is rather subtle. Aren't they substantially synonymous constructions? 151.73.53.166 17:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)