consisted of, consisting of, consist(s) of (2025)

I'm kind of confused about when to use 'consisted of' and when to use 'consisting of' or consist(s) of.

My guess is that when preceded by 'is' or 'are', 'consisted of' should be used.

'A is consisted of B and C'.

If not preceded by 'is' or 'are', either 'consist(s) of' or 'consisting of' should be used. What confuses me here is whether it is incorrect to use 'consisted of' when not preceded by 'is' or 'are'

'A consists of B and C.'

'I picked A consisting of B and C.'

'I picked A consisted of B and C.' (incorrect (???))

Could anyone comment on this???

To be honest, I find it difficult to get my head wrapped around your sentences because they're not "real". I always have to relate to something in real life ie:

"When I was young, going shopping consisted of putting on my coat and walking to the store" (past tense)
"Now that I am old and lazy, going shopping consists of putting on my coat, getting into my car and driving to the store" (present tense)
"Consisting of putting on my coat and driving to the store, my exercise regimen isn't very good"

You wouldn't use "consisted of" after "is" or "are".

"Is consisted of" doesn't really work, miranamu; "consists of" does.

"A consists of B and C."
"A is composed of B and C."
"A comprises B and C."
"I picked A which consisted of B and C."

Hmm...

So do you mean that the verb 'consist' shouldn't be used in the passive form?

If so, should 'consisted of' only be used as a past tense of 'consist of'?

mirunamu said:

Hmm...

So do you mean that the verb 'consist' shouldn't be used in the passive form?

Click to expand...

As it is not a transitive verb, it does not have a passive form. Only transitive verbs have a passive form.

If so, should 'consisted of' only be used as a past tense of 'consist of'?

Click to expand...

There is no "should" involved: the only way it can be used is as a past tense.

mirunamu said:

If so, should 'consisted of' only be used as a past tense of 'consist of'?

Click to expand...

It can be used in the perfect and pluperfect/past perfect as well:

It has always consisted of three parts.

I just came across this "consisted of" issue like mirunamu described it.
I found this on wikipedia, more precisely on the Retrovirus article, see here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus

beneath the title "Virion Structure" there is a listing of some information regarding this topic. There it says:
"RNA: consisted of a dimer RNA. It has a cap at 5' end..." and
"Proteins: consisted of gag proteins, protease (PR), pol proteins and env proteins. Gag proteins are major components of the viral capsid..."

So if I got it right, this usage means past tense in both cases. But that sounds quite strange in my ears, because as it is a listing of some generic structural specifications, I would prefer using present tense, like:
"RNA: consists of a dimer RNA..." or "Proteins: consisting of gag proteins..."

thanks in advance

Just from browsing through the article, I would say that the person appears to know a great deal about a retrovirus but his or her English skills are not at the same level. There are at least five grammatical errors in the paragraph on RNA.

Please remember that Wikipedia is a collection of collaborative, peer-based, often unedited articles on a range of topics. I would not recommend using it as an example of good English, even though I find it very useful as a source of information.