Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.

[EX Q]: I have found a similar topic addressing the use of 'comprise' but my question is not exactly in line with that one. I did ask this question there to keep the topic related to the use of 'comprise' but it was removed since I did not follow protocol. So my apologies if this seems like a duplicate entry. When does one use 'comprises of' and when 'comprise'? Are they interchangeable? For example: 'My name comprises 5 letters' 'My name comprises of 5 letters' Which is correct? Or are they both acceptable?.
[EX A]: A quick look in a decent online dictionary is advisable: comprise Usage: The use of of after comprise should be avoided: the library comprises (not comprises of) 500 000 books and manuscripts Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged Collins. I don't think US usage is any different. Another quote, from the internet (repunctuated): Never use 'comprise of' or 'comprises of' - but 'comprised of' is allowed. This is a passive (or arguably adjectival) usage involving comprised which some consider to be ungrammatical.

[EX Q]: 'The worst student' is the student who is bad at things. In this case, 'worst' simply describes the noun. Following this logic, your 'worst enemy' would be the person who is very bad at being your enemy, thus is actually your best friend. Your 'worst enemy' is actually the enemy who is very good at being your enemy. Thus, in this context, 'worst' acts to amplify the inherent negative intent of the noun. 'Worst disaster' would be another example of this. Is this just a matter of context or there some science behind the interprettation of a negative adjective applied to a negative noun?.
[EX A]: Don't confuse English language with the mathematical theory. The adjective worst qualifies the noun enemy with even more bad values. So, a worst enemy is more dangerous than a normal enemy.

[EX Q]: Is there a specific reason for this? After all, it is 'boys and girls', rather than 'girls and boys'. If the boy (male) comes first here, why doesn't it come first in 'ladies and gentlemen'?.
[EX A]:
It probably has to do with the phonetic and metrical properties of 'ladies and gentlemen' versus 'gentlemen and ladies.' Say them both out loud and see which one sounds better to you, intuitively. The metrical pattern of 'ladies and gentlemen' consists of (arguably) two dactyls. A dactyl is a group of three syllables where the first is stressed and the second two are unstressed. When these occur in succession, they are pleasant to the ear. ladies and gentlemen DUM da da / DUM da da The metrical pattern of 'gentlemen and ladies' falls into a much less regular pattern. It is less pleasant to the ear. It is something like a stressed syllable followed by three unstressed syllables followed by a stressed syllable followed by an unstressed syllable. gentlemen and ladies DUM da da da DUM da Our language tends to organize itself according to regular and pleasant stress patterns. My guess is that is why we feel more drawn to 'ladies and gentlemen' than 'gentlemen and ladies' and why the former has conventionalized.

