How many here adhere to the "Oxford Comma", which conversely only applies to the American usage? I always get offended by it as it assumes no author is intelligent enough to figure out when a comma is required and when it isn't. Thus I've always refused. But I'm once more wondering whether I'm the sole odd duck in this regard.
Yeah, I've noticed. Yet if there's one thing I'm confident about, it's when to and how to use the proper punctuation—especially when it's most beneficial to drop required commas to make passages easier to read. As unnecessary pauses tend to throw readers, requiring them to double back and reread passages.
That said, aside from Switch, I haven't noticed it as frequently with other SOL authors, whatever their national origins or English usages may be.
As unnecessary pauses tend to throw readers, requiring them to double back and reread passages.
And when I don't see the serial comma, I stop and double back. I reread to understand the sentence — to make sure the last two items aren't associated. I do it every time.
I like Grammar Girl's logic:
Although the serial comma isn't always necessary, I favor it because often it does add clarity, and I believe in having a simple, consistent style, instead of trying to decide whether you need something on a case-by-case basis. I also think using the serial comma makes even simple lists easier to read. Really, unless space is incredibly expensive, I can't imagine why anyone would decide the best method is sometimes leave it out and sometimes add it in.
Really, unless space is incredibly expensive, I can't imagine why anyone would decide the best method is sometimes leave it out and sometimes add it in.
Because always using it can create ambiguity. Another black mark against Ms Fogarty.
AJ
Another case of 'damned if you do and damned if you don't'. Again, the worst aspect is it was always called the Oxford Comma, as it first proposed at Oxford, where it was rarely applied (there's always exceptions to any rule) while is was most universally accepted by Americans. One of the many ironic ironies.
I use the Oxford comma religiously.
Now I have to go look up the definition to see if I do or not.
How does it create ambiguity?
The example in wikipedia is:
They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and a cook.
This is ambiguous because it is unclear whether "a maid" is an appositive renaming of Betty or the second in a list of three people. On the other hand, removing the final comma:
They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid and a cook.
leaves the possibility that Betty is both a maid and a cook (with "a maid and a cook" read as an appositive phrase).[37] In this case, neither the serial-comma style—nor the no-serial-comma style—resolves the ambiguity.
They forced the confusion by using an example with an appositive just to make a point. In fact, they admitted the ambiguity exists with or without the Oxford comma because it can be interpreted as an appositive phrase when the comma is not used.
The stupidity of the ambiguity argument is shown by the examples. To force ambiguity they take an isolated sentence or phrase with no context. Do you sit down to read a page of unrelated sentences? Nobody does but that is what the arguments for the Oxford comma require.
If the examples used were real,they would be in a narrative where we would learn who Betty was. Knowing that there wouldn't be any confusion.
Yep, when in doubt, leave it out.
Unfortunately, I could easily determine the difference and thus stuck with it, no matter everyone who'd argue so vehunemously against my using it. Then again, I've always been incredibly pedantic, so just came naturally to me.
I use the Oxford comma religiously.
There are instances where the serial comma introduces ambiguity - see Wikipedia (spit!).
Breaking my own ethics about not fat-shaming, how would you punctuate the following sentence to make crystal clear that 'he' isn't beaten up and dominated by a horse?
Checking the outside he encounters Lady Helen Windthorpe in riding clothes upon a horse who confronts him, beats him up and dominates him.
AJ
There are instances where the serial comma introduces ambiguity
You mean:
the comma after Mother Teresa creates ambiguity because it can be read as an appositive phrase
I guess. But give me a break!
I guess. But give me a break!
I think absurd examples are chosen deliberately to highlight the concept, thus helping readers learn to identify potential problems for themselves. And for that snippet, I'd like to thank my parents, God and Mother Teresa.
AJ
In a story with that description and, the appropriate tags, does it really matter? Especially if it covers both, as it often does. ;) Yet another delicious irony.
How many here adhere to the "Oxford Comma", which conversely only applies to the American usage?
I use the Oxford comma religiously.
I use the Oxford comma religiously.
Dearly Beloved [insert choice of Flying Spaghetti Monster], I beseech you to bless this humble Oxford comma, that it may bring joy and enlightenment to all who encounter it. Amen
AJ
:-)
I always get offended by it as it assumes no author is intelligent enough to figure out when a comma is required and when it isn't.
This is complete nonsense.
I sometimes don't use it in automatic text generation, because that saves having to special-case "only two elements in the list", but otherwise... it reduces ambiguity far more often than it increases it.
Sorry, the context confuses the issue, since again, the Oxford comma is most often followed in American-written stories which typically occur in, of course, America, thus it's more a response to the piss-poor public education system which caused me so many issues when they suddenly decided to 'rewrite' how they taught 'standard English', so I ended up never fully comprehending it until years/decades later, when I doubled back to relearn American English standards from scratch. And in the end, my writing was better for it.
Can anyone say 'lifelong hangups'? (Old American TV reference from my childhood.)
I'm not a fan in the general case. When I notice it (which isn't too often, to be sure) I find myself going back to see what I missed that needed the comma. Usually if I have something that needs it I'll first try to rework it so it's no longer needed, only using it if things would be too awkward otherwise. Of course, I'm a hack, not a real writer, and my opinion is exactly that — my opinion.
That's typically the best response whenever you have an ambiguous phrasing or passage. Yet ...
As a reader, I hate the Oxford comma. It makes the text disjointed and choppy. Unless you expect your readers to be complete complete idiots it does nothing to reduce ambiguity.
Thus I learn, the grammar surrounding commas invokes tirades of indignation and triggers ADHD reactions.
In Latvian, which is prescriptive grammar language (with a government agency responsible for setting it in law, literally), there's no concept of optional punctuation. Each comma, or lack of one, is eiter correct or in error. That doesn't mean there can't be interpretations of different sentence structures using the same words in the same order, requiring different usage of punctuation. Back in high school I used to write essays with 50+ word sentences, then challenged teacher's interpretation of punctuation errors, with better than 50% success rate of proving different sentence structure with my commas use as valid (even in some cases when in fact the teacher was correct correcting my errors and the alternative I proved possible wasn't what I actually wanted to say). In several occasions those discussions resulted in me and the teacher drawing extensive sentence structures all over the blackboard for half an hour while the rest of the class was quietly doing homework or whatever.
However, that was over thirty years ago. My memory isn't perfect and things change, and I'm not going to look it up, but if I understand what "Oxford comma" is, there isn't one for us.
First, second, third.
First, second and third.
First and second, third.
First and second, and third.
First and second, and third and fourth -- this one is tricky, it implies both first&second and third&fourth are semantically comparable couplings, otherwise one more comma is required splitting one of the couples apart (and potentially leaving ambiguity about the other being a couple or not), and that's possibly the closest there is for an optional comma.
Writing in English, what little I do, I use commas entirely by feel, and overall about 30% less than I would by writing same in my native language, but I think I do use that serial comma more often than not.
As others have mentioned, where it gets confusing is when you intermix different lists of items. For example: We bought fruits: apples, peaches and plums; carrots, celery and cabbage, and box lunches for the kids.
And again, if you ask a grammar teacher, they will absolutely tell you it's absolutely wrong, yet again, in literature, what works well automatically become acceptable. Thus the rules are different for non-fiction (facts), fiction and even fictional biographies.
Fiction writers can get away with more as long as it aids the story, because again, nonfiction can be just as strange as it is, while in fiction, however unrealistic it is, it has the additional burden of needing to feel real (authentic).
However that 'whatever succeeds' maxim, generally applies to publishing in general, as you'll also notice it in the works of famous nonfictional authors too (ex: Neil deGrasse Tyson).
As others have mentioned, where it gets confusing is when you intermix different lists of items. For example: We bought fruits: apples, peaches and plums; carrots, celery and cabbage, and box lunches for the kid
You need a semi-colon instead of a comma after cabbage to remove the ambiguity
~ JBB
We bought fruits: apples, peaches and plums; carrots, celery and cabbage, and box lunches for the kid
Since the number of pieces of fruit are not enumerated, 'fruit' is better than 'fruits'. The list switches from fruit to vegetables, so 'vegetables' plus appropriate punctuation should be inserted between 'plums' and 'carrots'.
You need a semi-colon instead of a comma after cabbage to remove the ambiguity
Various grammar sites, including CMoS, agree with your semi-colon after cabbage because it's a list within a list containing commas.
AJ
The important thing is just to not use a language where it can produce invisible errors if someone else on the project uses different editor settings.
Newspapers (the AP stylebook) started the move away from the Oxford Comma to save space and ink. it was a money saving decision not a grammatical one. If you find stuff written by newspaper reporters they usually eschew the oxford comma unless it is really necessary for clarity.
I envision that 24 publishers, 48 editors, 42 assistants and 4 writers took 3 separate week long meetings at various resorts across the US, Mexico and Caribbean - all expenses paid - to finally come up with a proposal to ditch the comma to save ink.Then they all met with their spouses in New York City for a two day gala to give themselves awards for exemplary journalism. But their annual reports focused on the millions saved by eliminating that pesky comma. Someone should write a story.
Speaking of ambiguous lists, I just ran across a show on Netflix where the description includes the phrase, "starring Batman and Beetlejuice's Michael Keaton", which took me a second to figure out. Commas won't save you now.
Grammatically, "starring (Batman and Beetlejuice)'s Michael Keaton" and "starring Batman, and Beetlejuice's Michael Keaton" are equally valid reads. Given English associativity, the latter is likely to be most people's initial parse, and it's only on further consideration of the content that it becomes apparent that it doesn't make sense.
And, of course, the real question is: Has Michael Keaton really not been in anything worth mentioning in the last 35 years?
"starring Batman, and Beetlejuice's Michael Keaton"
It is not correct with the comma. It's supposed to be Batman's Michael Keaton and Beetlejuice's Michael Keaton. With the comma, it's simply Batman, not Michael Keaton's Batman.
It is not correct with the comma.
If you read three posts up, BlacKnight made that very point. I think he only included a comma to clarify one of the two possible associations.
AJ
If nothing else, 'Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)' would have to count as something worth mentioning (Keaton was nominated for an Academy Award; the movie won four Oscars). 'The Founder' counts as well, and he's been in other good films ('Spotlight', for instance).
But none of those might appeal to the target audience of whatever Netflix was advertising.
Speaking of ambiguous lists, I just ran across a show on Netflix where the description includes the phrase, "starring Batman and Beetlejuice's Michael Keaton", which took me a second to figure out.
It's not ambiguous if the writer always uses the Oxford comma because its absence means the association is between Batman and Beetlejuice.
If the writer never uses the Oxford comma, the question is whose Batman portrayal? :-)
AJ
Oxford still doesn't use a comma when there are only two elements in the list. Thus my comment above about automatic text generation.
Oxford still doesn't use a comma when there are only two elements in the list.
Good point. Thank you for pointing that out.
AJ