The Oxford comma: Yea, nay, or indifferent?

[Clare Quilty]

Serial comma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The serial comma, also known as an Oxford comma or a Harvard comma, is a comma used before the word "and" or "or" in a list of three or more items. For example, the phrase "ham, chips, and eggs" is written with a serial comma, but "ham, chips and eggs" is not.

Most authorities on modern American English usage recommend using the serial comma. Certain newspapers, such as the New York Times, omit the serial comma (supposedly to save space). In British and Australian English, the serial comma is normally not used except when its absence produces ambiguity. The alternate names for the serial comma come from Oxford University Press and Harvard University Press, who do use it in their publications.

The main justification cited for using the serial comma is to reduce ambiguity. The standard example of how confusion can result from the absence of a serial comma is the (probably fictitious) book dedication: "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God". A comma before the "and" would rule out the unlikely possibility that the writer's parents are Ayn Rand and God. Another ambiguity arises in any list where the last or penultimate item contains the word "and". For example, the instruction, "At the store, buy bread, macaroni and cheese, and bacon," would be ambiguous without the serial comma before "and bacon."

However, consistent use of the serial comma can also introduce ambiguity, as in the phrase "We considered Ms. Roberts for the roles of Marjorie, David's mother, and Louise", which is ambiguous as to whether Marjorie is David's mother, but would not be if the final comma were removed. Thus, whichever convention is followed, the writer may be forced to use the alternative (or to rephrase the sentence) to remove ambiguity in particular cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma

 

[DirtyJJ]

I generally like the use of the comma, especially in the first example, to provide clarity. I have, however, run into the second situation where some rewording of the sentence is necessary to avoid confusion. In that case I find it more difficult to know the best way to write it so that it is clear.
JJ

 

[LorriLove]

Depends on my mood whether I religiously chuck in the comma's willy-nilly... also of course the need to prevent confusion in a statement or sentence.

Well I live and work there, so I can play with the Oxford comma to my hearts content.

 

[vargas111]

I am a firm believer in the serial comma.

[However, consistent use of the serial comma can also introduce ambiguity, as in the phrase

"We considered Ms. Roberts for the roles of Marjorie, David's mother, and Louise"

which is ambiguous as to whether Marjorie is David's mother, but would not be if the final comma were removed.]

Removing the final comma would still leave this sentence amgibuous. If "David's mother" is an appositive, I'd place it in parentheses in this case to avoid making it appear to be a list.

We considered Ms. Roberts for the roles of Marjorie (David's mother) and Louise.

Or

We considered Ms. Roberts for the roles of David's mother Majorie and Louise.

Of course no convention relieves a writer of looking at what is written and making sure it conveys the meaning clearly.

 

[gauchecritic]

So, as usual, the answer seems to be; do what looks right.

Gauche

 

[R. Richard]

Claire Quilty: You say:
The main justification cited for using the serial comma is to reduce ambiguity. The standard example of how confusion can result from the absence of a serial comma is the (probably fictitious) book dedication: "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God". A comma before the "and" would rule out the unlikely possibility that the writer's parents are Ayn Rand and God. Another ambiguity arises in any list where the last or penultimate item contains the word "and". For example, the instruction, "At the store, buy bread, macaroni and cheese, and bacon," would be ambiguous without the serial comma before "and bacon."

I think you are too quick here to dismiss the pssibility that the writer's parents are Ayn Rand and God. I myself have been called the Devil's child (as well as things that are too raw for even this forum) on numerous occasions. It is important to keep an open mind in these matters.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Ham, bacon, pork, and beans.

isn't the same as

Ham, bacon, pork and beans.

Nor is

She was bewildered, dazed, and confused.

the same as

She was bewildered, dazed and confused.

If there are more than 3 items in the list, I think I tend to use the final comma. Ommitting the Oxford comma implies that the final two items are a pair.

---dr.M.

 

[matriarch]

So, as usual, the answer seems to be; do what looks right.

Gauche

As always, Gauche.......perspicacious brevity.

I received a feedback for my latest story (not a plug, honestly), from dear Mr/Mrs/It Anonymous which took up the case of my apparent mis-use of commas in the text. I will copy and paste it here in total, for your edification:

As with all to many amateurish (notice I didn't state amateur) writers, you seem to think the more commas the better. WRONG! Take, for example, you last paragraph.

Your smile widened, as your lips moved up to softly brush over mine, and you whispered against them, before possessing them in a deep soft kiss, "Oh, but I did check, my love."

This should have been punctuated as follows.

Your smile widened as your lips moved up to softly brush over mine, and you whispered against them before possessing them in a deep soft kiss. "Oh, but I did check, my love."

You don't need a comma after every single phrase.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the fact that he/she/it was more incensed with my punctuation than the content of the story!

Basically, he/she/it removed two commas, and replaced one of them with a full stop. Apparently the other 3 were perfectly acceptable. Puhleeeeease!

But not having an address to which to respond, politely, I have been unable to ask him/her/it whether that was the only thing they found to complain about in my 'amateurish writing'. I also wanted to take up the point of his/her/its mis-spelling of 'to', in the first line, which even to my amateurish literary abilities, should clearly have been 'too'.

Mat

 

[vargas111]

Matriarch.

There was no call to call your writing "amateurish," (it clearly is not) but I agree with the suggested revised punctuation. It makes it read much more easily.

Nor should you think badly of someone who commented on a technical point rather than the substance of the story. Probably if he or she had not thought the story was good, he or she would not have taken the trouble to write.

Cheers


Homer

 

[Guest]

I was taught English (and Latin) grammar from 1957 to 1964 (I was 11 to 18) by the strictest grammarians ever put on this planet: Catholic nuns. I am forever grateful to them (for that and an appreciation of art and literature).

Even old Sister Mary Dick said the comma might be left out before a conjunction to prevent a lack of clarity. She would have thought Gauche a bit flippant; the point isn't what "looks" right, but what makes the most sense for the reader (presuming it makes sense to the author).

Perdita

 

[Clare Quilty]

This thread garnered more pertinent responses than I would have hoped--and not a single anti-Salinger rant. Thank you for your collective input.

Is it unseemly to alternate between the use and omission of the serial comma within the same piece of writing?

 

[Guest]

Is it unseemly to alternate between the use and omission of the serial comma within the same piece of writing?

A definitive nyet from me and Sister Mary Peter. It has to do with meaning, not style. P.

 

[Clare Quilty]

I was taught English (and Latin) grammar from 1957 to 1964 (I was 11 to 18) by the strictest grammarians ever put on this planet: Catholic nuns...

Unfortunately, by the time the good sisters of the order of The Immaculate Heart of Mary got their hands on me, Latin had been dropped from mass and the Catholic school curriculum.

 

[Guest]

Seriously, Q, learning Latin is one of the best aids to learning how English works. Perhaps you could check out a basic Latin grammar or how-to book. Also, it's one language where pronunciation and speaking use do not matter. P.

(I had Dominicans, still a very progressive order.)

 

[Pure]

hi matriarch,
i think your critic had a point, even if a minor one. as vargas suggested, one pays copy editors and proofreaders for such tiny improvements (which mark literotica stuff from most published material).

I agree I prefer substantive feedback, as do you. but, to each his own.

 

[Pure]

While Latin can sensitize one to grammar, it's worth noting that many of the weird rules of grammarians of the 19th century, came from attempts to import Latin rules into English (or to dream up counterparts). One example is the famous 'split infinitive' question, which, to my knowledge has NO basis--as a global prohibition--other than an attempt to have Latin related rule.

Not to speak of those folks who, when you phone and ask for "Pat" say, "It is I."

 

[Clare Quilty]

Seriously, Q, learning Latin is one of the best aids to learning how English works. Perhaps you could check out a basic Latin grammar or how-to book. Also, it's one language where pronunciation and speaking use do not matter. P.

(I had Dominicans, still a very progressive order.)

I would like to have learned Latin purely for Latin's sake--the reading of Ovid and so forth... That is not to say that you aren't 100% correct about Latin's benefit in mastering English--not to mention Castilian and French.

 

[vargas111]

Ovid

Ovid has some really hot stories, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

The omission of the serial comma was a fiendish plot first promoted by the AP stylebook folks because it made newspaper type look neater. Much to its dis-credit, the Chicago Manual of Style relented to the extent of placing its use in the optional category.

There is no logical reason not to use the serial comma except for aesthetics. However, as with most grammar, it's better to be consistent than correct--although it's best to be both. Besides, in this day and age when writer's like Toni Morrison will, with malice aforethought, leave out a comma to "make the reader think," the serial comma may be on the endangered list of punctuation marks.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Guest]

Here is some useful Latin (not taught by nuns). P.

Te futueo et equum tuum. - Screw you and the horse you rode in on.
Flocci non faccio. - I don't give a damn
Mihi irruma et te pedicabo. - Give me head and I'll ass fuck you
Tu es stultior quam asinum. - You are dumber than an ass.
Dorme mecum. - Sleep with me.
Es scortum obscenus vilis. - You are a vile, perverted whore.
Es mundus excrementi, - You are a pile of shit.
Bibe semen meum. - Swallow (drink) my cum.
Pallas meas lambe! - Lick my balls.
Stercorem pro cerebro habes. - You have shit for brains.
Matris futuor. - Mother fucker.
Te odeo, interfice te cum cochleare. - I hate you. Kill yourself with a spoon.
Stercus accidit. - Shit happens.
Quando podeces te regi eorum fecerunt? - When did the assholes make you their king?
Quo usque tandem abutere patentia nostra? - How long are you going to abuse our patience?
Ut si! - As if!
Utinam barbari spatium proprium tuum invadant. - May barbarians invade your personal space.
Immanissimum ac foedissimum monstrum! - Gross and putrid monster!
Faciem durum cacantis habes. - You have the face of a man with severe constipation.
Hic erit in lecto fortissimos. - He is Hercules in the sack.

 

[Pure]

Another concocted 'rule' for English based on the (mis) analogy with Latin.

Never end a sentence with a proposition.

 

[snooper]

I often use commas in my writing, but I can find no trace, after extensive research, of a spoon being used anywhere in my writing as a punctuation mark.

Anyone who confuses a comma and a spoon should see an optician, and eat only witha fork until they do.

 

[vargas111]

Having driven out "ain't" is another such "schoolmarm" rule, leaving us to say things like, "are'nt I?"

But it all comes down to

1) knowing the conventions of grammar, punctuation, etc. and

2) careing enough about your readers to apply or not apply those conventions to achive the best communication you are capabale of

3) for the degree of formality and tone you wish to employ.

 

[snooper]

... But it all comes down to
1) knowing the conventions of grammar, punctuation, etc. and ...

The problem is that some people do not know the conventions and write appalling messes from ignorance, rather than by design. It is particularly galling if the story is obviously a good one with interesting twists.

 

[Guest]

Another concocted 'rule' for English based on the (mis) analogy with Latin.
Never end a sentence with a proposition.

It is not a mis-analogy and was never an analogy. Latin was a discrete language, English would not exist without it (though it could without the French, Danish, etc.) Rules were made as needed, they changed, they got broken, etc. Bringing up prepositions (I presume you were not being witty) and participles is not an issue anymore.

Perdita