Forum: Editors/Reviewers Hangout

I actually suck at grammar so I don't know the term, but the "sitting on his porch when I pulled up to his house" isn't needed to make it a complete sentence. "Pastor Harding motioned for me to park in the rear" is a complete sentence.

In that case, Word sucks at correctly identifying the noun and verb when they are separated like that.

I actually suck at grammar so I don't know the term, but the "sitting on his porch when I pulled up to his house" isn't needed to make it a complete sentence. "Pastor Harding motioned for me to park in the rear" is a complete sentence.

When I added the "sitting on his porch when I pulled up to his house," I put commas on both sides of it (since it isn't needed).

So I don't need a "was."

Your analysis of the grammar was spot on here.

The test is: if I can delete all this and leave a complete sentence, I may insert it inside the sentence enclosed in commas (but you then need to check if the entire sentence then needs semi-colons).

I don't know the grammatical term either, for this type of supplementary phrase, but I'd expect to contain the word 'complex'.

I looked up my reference on commas (from Purdue University

I have studied a similar reference recently. I'm confident I could do a fine job of editing the punctuation for a Purdue Uni. student's term paper.

Problem is, I only want to edit create writing.

There appears to be many things mandated for technical writers that authors of fiction treat as optional - because in skilled hands, they can convey different meanings with or without various marks.

In addition, there is a difference in the UK style of 'Oxford commas', and the usual style of US authors. Even using the US style, many authors are more flexible than is allowable for technical writing.

To be a complete editor, I'd need to know just how flexible authors can be with their punctuation, whether they use Oxford commas, or not.

Can anyone suggest references that identify the differences allowed in punctuation for:
(a) technical versus creative writing; and/or
(b) British versus American creative writing?

I am not feeling very playful at the moment. I'm willing to do the work, but the only references anyone has identified for me so far are having the effect of me cramping my writers' creativity - when I believe things are mandatory, when in fact, for creative writers they need to be optional!

government financial reports if you want to really work with very creative documents

LOL. Financial reports are NOWHERE near as creative status reports for major redevelopments of government computing systems. It doesn't matter how many years (or decades) they take, the project is redefined, and the new estimated completion date is now 'Not next year, but the one after that'.
I'd describe this as happening 'magically', if it wasn't for the fact it's predictable and repeatable, the hallmarks of the scientific method.

government financial reports if you want to really work with very creative documents

LOL. Financial reports are NOWHERE near as creative status reports for major redevelopments of government computing systems. It doesn't matter how many years (or decades) they take, every year the project is redefined so the new estimated completion date is, 'Not next year, but the one after that.'

I'd describe this as happening 'magically', if it wasn't for the fact it's predictable and repeatable, the hallmarks of the scientific method.

Ditto everything I just said to Switch Blayde.

Actally ... as SB noted, the site you suggested is rubbish ... but it's the thought that counts in my book

Actally ... as SB noted, the site you suggested is rubbish ...

@CrumblyWriter

Actally ... the site you suggested was a revelation!

My apologies for being dismissive before reading it carefully.

It cited 8 (in)famous quotes (4 each from both sides) by people claiming the use (or not) of the Oxford comma was creating (or preventing) ambiguities.

After considering those quotes, I have become a committed adherent to benefits of using the Oxford comma.

Firstly, the expression does NOT indicate it's the preferred style in Britain. In fact, the reverse is true. The name comes from the fact that Oxford University (or perhaps OU Press) was one of the few institutions in Britain has insisted for some time it be used.

I am going to start using the other expression for this style, the 'serial comma'.

The serial comma is used widely in the US (but not in newspapers). The non-serail comma is most common in UK (but not at Oxford).

To me, the choice is quite simple. The serial comma allows creative writers more flexibility in the meanings they can convey. It never (based on an analysis of the infamous quotes cited) CREATES ambiguities -- provided it is used correctly.

Almost all of the examples quoted, by both sides of the debate, were not actually ambiguities created by the use or not of the serial comma. Mostly were simply sentences in which ONLY commas were used for punctuation, despite the need for more than one type of separator in those sentences.

There are other separators that may be used freely when needed (semi-colons, dashes and parentheses). If the writers of the suspect sentences had used commas for one purpose (a list of items), and anything else for separating clauses, then all potential ambiguities disappear.

My example sentence ...

'She took a photograph of her parents, the President and the Secretary of State.'

I am hoping to see sentences like that quite often over the next 9 years, and I will KNOW if the writer is using serial commas, the photographer could only be Chelsea Clinton!

Writers NOT USING serial commas will have difficulty conveying that meaning. The only easy way I can see they could achieve that is by inserting 'own' before the word 'parents'.

Writers USING serial commas will have two options:

(1) 'She took a photograph of her parents, the President and the Secretary of State.'

(2) 'She took a photograph of her parents, the President, and the Secretary of State.'

There is NO AMBIGUITY with either of these sentences!

Sentence (1) can only mean Chelsea Clinton took a photograph of two people.

Sentence (2) can only mean someone, whoever they may be, took a group photograph of four people.

(I ask the forgiveness of the LGBT and other communities in presuming all people have two parents. I'm trying to make an important point here!)

IMHO, the serial comma should be preferred by creative writers, because it allows greater flexibility of meaning to be conveyed without the need for extra words to prevent ambiguities. It appears to have the benefit of already being used more frequently, by most in the US and Canada, plus minorities elsewhere (that are probably growing).

I note that both forms are correct, and both are used on both sides of the Atlantic. It is a matter of personal choice, and for your readers being consistent and accurate in whatever choice you make is more important than which you choose.

My example sentence ...

'She took a photograph of her parents, the President and the Secretary of State.'

I am hoping to see sentences like that quite often over the next 9 years, and I will KNOW if the writer is using serial commas, the photographer could only be Chelsea Clinton!

Writers NOT USING serial commas will have difficulty conveying that meaning. The only easy way I can see they could achieve that is by inserting 'own' before the word 'parents'.

Writers USING serial commas will have two options:

(1) 'She took a photograph of her parents, the President and the Secretary of State.'

(2) 'She took a photograph of her parents, the President, and the Secretary of State.'

There is NO AMBIGUITY with either of these sentences!

Sentence (1) can only mean Chelsea Clinton took a photograph of two people.

Sentence (2) can only mean someone, whoever they may be, took a group photograph of four people.

Sorry, I beg to disagree.

I don't know how many Presidents since photography was invented have had daughters and we don't know if this refers to the USofA or another country.
Unless this is clarified elsewhere the President and Secretary of State of ****land could be married and the photographer is their daughter.

The comma after President in one example is simply one of the differences in systems. Depending on where you were educated the two sentences can easily mean exactly the same thing, the UK reader of example 2 simply thinking that the author is a Yank.

The statement "Sentence (1) can only mean Chelsea Clinton took a photograph of two people" might be valid in America but elsewhere it can mean there were four people in the picture.

For a person to be taking a photo of their parents who hold the two positions of US President and US Secretary of State it would have to be someone in the last few decades, because prior to that both positions were all held by men, and gay people wouldn't get elected. Thus you're down to female US Presidents and female US Secretary of State with a spouse in the other position - only one candidate so far. That may change in the future, but not at the moment.

There is no mention of the USA; many many countries around the world have Presidents but the real argument is between the systems of having or not having a comma before the "and"

cooked meat (lamb, or beef, or pork) with carrots, peas, and mashed potatoes. Each is served in a different spot on the plate. However, for most of my life while still living at home what I ate was meat, carrots, peas and mashed potatoes. This was because I mixed the peas and potatoes into a single pile and ate them both with the fork. The presence or absence of the commas can change how it's viewed.

I disagree with your second assertion. In modern English an adjective refers to the word(s) following it. It does not imply that the peas were mashed onto the potatoes; from the second clause the meat, carrots and peas might or might not have been placed on top of the mashed potatoes, mixed with the spuds or placed, each on its own plate, to be eaten together.

There is no mention of the USA

Yes, there was.
There was mention of Chelsea Clinton and the next 9 years during which her mother is quite likely to be POTUS.

There is no mention of the USA
Yes, there was.
There was mention of Chelsea Clinton and the next 9 years during which her mother is quite likely to be POTUS.

IMO, If Chelsea Clinton has the opportunity to take that picture, the USA will cease to exist before the end of her mother's first term.

IMO, If Chelsea Clinton has the opportunity to take that picture, the USA will cease to exist before the end of her mother's first term.

And I will be among many who would be delighted by that outcome.

IMO, If Chelsea Clinton has the opportunity to take that picture, the USA will cease to exist before the end of her mother's first term.

And I will be among many who would be delighted by that outcome.

I do not believe the 'many' you refer to would be in the majority. And I also believe that any that are delighted at the fall of the USA would soon regret it.

There was mention of Chelsea Clinton and the next 9 years during which her mother is quite likely to be POTUS.

Her maximum term would be 8 years.

The maximum possible term a president can serve is 9 years 11 months 30 days.

The only way to go over 8 years is for a vice president to take over from a sitting president mid term and then get elected twice. However, if the vice president takes over at or before the half way point in the prior president's term that term counts against the vice president for his/her own presidential term limit

So if a VP took over at the 2 year mark the VP could only run for re-election once and would max out at 6 years. One day later and the VP can run for re-election twice, maxing out at just under 10 years.

However, Hillary is not VP, she wouldn't be taking over mid term from Obama, so she maxes out at 2 full terms for 8 year total.

There was mention of Chelsea Clinton

I don't think Chelsea would get the opportunity to take that picture even if Hillary gets elected.

Bill has already termed out, so it would create a significant constitutional issue if she named Bill as her VP as you would have a VP who is arguably ineligible to take over if Hillary died, resigned or was impeached.

I say arguably because some have argued that the 2 term limit only applies to consecutive terms, however no president/presidential candidate has attempted to push that issue since the 2 term limit was enacted.

Former presidents are always referred to as President.

In person and by name only. And not every one agrees with that.

"She took a photograph of her parents, the President and the Secretary of State."

Former presidents are always referred to as President. So when Hillary was Secretary of State and Chelsea took a picture of her mother and father, the sentence would apply.

No, you are wrong. With the sentence as stated, 99.99% of US readers will assume you mean the current president. If the statement had said "former president" or "president Clinton" or "Chelsea took a photograph" you might have a point, as is, you don't.

Writers USING serial commas will have two options:

(1) 'She took a photograph of her parents, the President and the Secretary of State.'

(2) 'She took a photograph of her parents, the President, and the Secretary of State.'

There is NO AMBIGUITY with either of these sentences!

Sentence (1) can only mean Chelsea Clinton took a photograph of two people.

Sentence (2) can only mean someone, whoever they may be, took a group photograph of four people.

To those who did not understand from my PREVIOUS naming of Chelsea Clinton my example was implied as being in US, I will spell this out for you more clearly!

Writers USING serial commas will have two options:

(1) 'In January 2017, She took a photograph of her parents, the President of the United States of America and the Secretary of State of the United States of America.'

(2) 'In January 2017, She took a photograph of her parents, the President of the United States of America, and the Secretary of State of the United States of America.'

If you are still capable of noticing the extra comma in sentence (2), Note there is NO AMBIGUITY with either of these sentences!

Sentence (1) can only mean Chelsea Clinton took a photograph of two people.

Sentence (2) can only mean someone, whoever they may be, took a group photograph of four people.

Do you disagree with my analysis of the grammar in those two sentences, NOTING the writer uses serial commas routinely, and their readers are aware of that.

Reviewing your suggested site (which doesn't have much in it and no mention of the Oxford comma, one of the more obvious items), I was struck by the mention of the international date format

When I looked at it (I wonder who on earth created it) A little of it was wrong from the UK standpoint We DO use a full stop/point after abbreviations like Mr., Mrs., Messrs., etc.. (note the two full stops).

I do use an apostrophe when referring to the 1980's.

I do use the dd/mm/yyyy format and hate it; I prefer to include st, nd, rd, th, as appropriate after the day number and spell the month out in full - not the abbreviations some use.
As for the quotation clause I would try to reword so that I am not quoting within a quote.

Of course I learned a very very long time ago when we were relatively free of foreign influences.

When I looked at it (I wonder who on earth created it) A little of it was wrong from the UK standpoint

The International Standards Organization created it.

The international date format YYYY/MM/DD is ISO 8601 standard date format.

While it is not in general use anywhere, it is being used internally by the EU and other international organizations.

Some business is the US are using it internally as well. The reason is that dates stored is strings in ISO 8601 for with or without delimiters will sort correctly without special processing.

The funny thing about that is there was no confirmed case of any hardware that would crash a system because of the expected turn over from 1999 to 2000, but they did find some software that would have a problem, simply because the software had been written a long time before and only used a two digit year date.

I spent 15 years working in a corporate IT department doing application development. I work for a consulting company now, but I still do corporate IT work.

Y2K was at the beginning of my career (I started in 1997). A 500 employee corporate IT department spent 2-3 calendar months in 1999 doing nothing but testing for and fixing Y2K/two digit year issues. That's 83-125 man years of work for one company.

There were software systems written in 1995 that were using 2 digit years.

Oh and there were some operating systems that had date issues with the system date. The Unix operating system used a system date/time stored as a binary integer offset in milliseconds from 1/1/1970. I don't remember exactly when the system date was supposed to roll over but it was sometime in the 2005-2020 range.

While the whole system wouldn't crash, any applications running on it that were dependent on knowing the current date would have issues when the system date rolled over. And they would have issues that most business would consider worse than crashing. The issue would end up causing data corruption in potentially business critical data without raising any errors.

Not a single power or utility management or plane controller program was found to have software relying on the date.

The company I worked for was an electric utility. And yes, there were critical systems impacted by Y2K issues.

Nothing that by itself would have crashed the grid, but systems that the company depended on for efficient outage response were affected.

Had the company not done remediation of critical systems, the first major storm in their service territory could have taken 3-4 times longer to recover from than they would/should have.

These issues themselves could have cost lives, and not just for linemen.

Were there no critical systems affected? Or were there no problems in 2000 because millions were spent fixing the potential issues?

We'll never really know for sure.

Most countries ran Y2K programs where the various companies, especially utilities, had to report back to a government agency on what they were doing and what they had done, and what they found, for about a year or more before 1 Jan 2000.

I think the greatest problem was journalistic terrorism. One program might have a problem so therefore (144 point headline in red) Every computer program anywhere in the world will fail, ICBMs will be launched. The end of the world is nigh etc.etc.

There were articles stating categorically that (to save memory) computers only remember the last two digits and automatically add 19 in front so 2000 becomes 1900.
The man in the street knew nothing except what he/she read and politicians saw an opportunity for sound bites and other profitable excursions into unreality so all computer users were under public pressure to be seen to being "doing something" and extolling their virtues from Big Ben, the Empire State building et al.

Therefore software producers had a good 1996-1999 and a miserable 2000 to 2006 or later.

I think the greatest problem was journalistic terrorism.

I don't disagree with that, however, I worked in the IT department of an US electric utility from 1997-2013, so I have direct personal experience with Y2K.

There were also people out there saying that there were no issues and nothing at all needed to be done and that even if nothing was done, nothing bad would happen.

Those people were just as wrong as the fear mongers.

I think the greatest problem was journalistic terrorism.

I don't disagree with that, however, I worked in the IT department of an US electric utility from 1997-2013, so I have direct personal experience with Y2K.

As a sideline to my job I was responsible for risk assessment and contingency planning for the non- American (ie Europe, Africa, Asia) side of an American (not US) bank during that period. My biggest problem was Head Office bosses reading the rags.

Our own technical people handled everything quietly and competently.

I don't disagree with that, however, I worked in the IT department of an US electric utility from 1997-2013, so I have direct personal experience with Y2K.

I worked from 1980 onwards on a system that was created in the late 1960's, and has been growing ever since. The BIG ISSUE at the time the system was written was the cost of magnetic tape. Things like not storing two digits for the century saved a lot of money. Much of the code to do that is still in that system, although the big issue now is the time needed for mechanical movements to read a selected piece of data from most storage devices.

It was known yet appreciated just how difficult and dangerous it was going to be make large scale changes to a complex 'legacy system'. Decisions to make changes needed before 2000 were so terrifying, they were put off until they could no longer be avoided.

The fear generated by journalists as 2000 approached was massively overblown, but the fear of programmers with the job of ensuring their system would not fail was very real.

...only having 4k...

I remember my first computer, a TRS-80 model I Level I. Came with whopping 4k of memory. Programming was either in BASIC or Assembly. Storage was on a cassette tape.

Which usually related only to the presentation and not the actual data storage if a it was to be sued for a calculation. If it was for static storage, then it was only stored as two digits but represented no hazard to anyone at all.

I have direct experience with corporate mainframe software that stored dates as a mmddyy string and were doing both sorting and elapsed time calculation on those dates.

These were business critical applications for an electric utility.

One of those applications was a outage ticket management system and the date related calculations were vital to the way the application worked.

Many accounting systems do critical calculations using dates. At the time, most large corporate accounting systems were still running on mainframes.

Nobody in the mainframe world used binary integer date formats even for database storage.

Except dates are stories by their digital values (hundredths of a second since a specific date, most often 1950), instead of sorting the text display (ex: "1950/01/25"). Thus the

There are still a lot of business systems, accounting, payroll, etc. that store dates as strings. I have dealt with a few of them in my professional career in IT.

Particularly mainframe based systems. And there are a hell of a lot of mainframe systems out there in the corporate world. IBM still sells mainframe computers, though these days, only a few units a year.

And that's the corporate world. Governments are even further behind.

since few would be born on the same day and the files are kept by date of birth - also helps with privacy.

There's another Australian with an identical name (which does not include anything very common) and date of birth.

We know a lot about each others medical history when Medicare combined our records for a few years.

Poor bugger must have nightmares too when I went into bankruptcy.

since few would be born on the same day and the files are kept by date of birth - also helps with privacy.

There's another Australian with an identical name (which does not include anything very common) and date of birth.

We know a lot about each others medical history when Medicare combined our records for a few years.

Poor bugger must have nightmares too when I went into bankruptcy.

That demonstrates the stupidity of most forms of personal records. Americans seem to use their infinitely long references numbers but I cannot remember my NI number or NHS number (of which more anon).

What I can remember is my Identity Card number - four letters, a space and three numbers which was issued within 24 hours of birth (I have the proof of that time period)not too much less than four decades ago.

Because of the basis of that number there can never be another person with that number - the name is irrelevant and they are still issued and recorded to this day.

Along came the Americans and that went by the board. For the health service they changed nice simple ID numbers like ABCD 123 to huge great numbers which no one could possibly remember and are not written down anywhere and are not even used by the tax people who have their own two parallel huge number systems.

Then we got Blair (I think it was) who wanted to issue ID cards incorporating details of the scars on everyone's arses as well as more personal details.

Gimme the (old and modern) ID numbers issued at birth out of a book of serially numbered forms

the health service they changed nice simple ID numbers like ABCD 123 ... Then we got Blair (I think it was) who wanted to issue ID cards incorporating details of the scars on everyone's arses as well as more personal details ... Gimme the (old and modern) ID numbers issued at birth out of a book of serially numbered forms

The scrapping of simple numbers looks like a tragedy to me. There's only a handful of countries with a population large enough to use a fourth digit.

One driving force for that trend is computer programmers wanting to use primary reference numbers, or parts of them, to sort and select various sub-groups.

The programmers and departmental boffins get together and decide what is most convenient for their administration. Did anyone ask, "Do simple and unique reference numbers save lives?" Probably, but nobody would have wanted to answer that.

Retrospective issuing of numbers doesn't work either. A similar ID card was proposed in Australia, and howled down by the public. They knew that once created the boffins would find incremental expansions of its use into areas the public does not want, even without considering what the spooks would do without them ever knowing.

I have one policy in response to all this. I do not simply trust doctors in hospitals. I know they're accustomed to being treated like demigods, but I make it clear I, alone, make decisions about my health. I try to assuage their egos by saying "I trust you, but people die in the best of hospitals because of mistakes in the system. I insist you explain everything going into, or done to my body, so I can check what others are intending to do is correct." They may not like it, but they'll accept it is best practice. There is only one person in a hospital who has a vested in triple checking everything about your treatment is correct, yourself!

I have one policy in response to all this. I do not simply trust doctors in hospitals.

The wife of a work colleague went into hospital; the birth of her child went well for both her and their baby. Then she started going downhill until eventually she was given perhaps 12 hours to live. A student doctor wandering down the ward asked if tests had been done; of course they hadn't but as soon as she was treated for that she recovered completely (except for that specific condition of course).

Years previously I had come back from Africa and went straight into hospital for a week to find out the cause of abdominal problems. The hospital had the full medical records since birth and from Africa. I was discharged with the symptoms and no diagnosis. A month later, guiding a party of Norwegian medical students one of them saw the problem I was having inside many layers of clothing and said
"you have had malaria, haven't you?
Answer, "yes".
"Those are symptoms occasionally caused by malaria".

The hospital knew I had had malaria but it took a student doctor with no knowledge of my medical history to spot the problem and know the diagnosis.

I had a GP who knew me and my lifestyle and treated me taking my lifestyle into account. Unfortunately he has retired and instead of getting a routine appointment that or next day they have been quoting over a week to see whichever of the practice doctors who might be free.

But I try to make my punctuation as correct as possible.

Thanks for the UK vs US guide. I've only had internet access for limited periods of the day recently, so you finding that for me is very helpful.
Regarding correct punctuation, I totally agree, but the part of my research project into that is what things can creative writers treat as optional, AND remain within correct boundaries. If they know and are consistent in their practices, they can then include or exclude marks on occasions to create nuances that would be harder to do in other ways. But, thanks again for getting me one step closer towards that

dare I mention the European created Libre Office has a good UK Spell Checker?

Open Office also has a UK spell checker available. Not having used it, I can't vouch for how good it is.

The M$ WORD spell-checker bases your dictionary on your main user ID (for your computer's log-in).

My laptop is a French badged Acer running French OEM software including Office.

I have separately downloaded an English cut down version and I can run either independently but it is USofA spelling and I assume US grammar.

Two problems; the keyboard can (rarely) jump from French to English layout so a Q becomes an A etc. Simple to correct but the retyping is a pain.

Many keys cover three characters, for example the ç key upper case is 9 but the third is a circumflex (set by Alt Gr key). If the keyboard has gone to English layout the correction does not allow the third characters to be accessed - I have to reboot.

To me that is a simple adjectival clause describing the two words preceding it.

The pastor, sitting on his porch when I pulled up to his house, motioned for me to park in the rear.

INHO, technically its a adjectival clause providing extra information about the pastor joined to an adverbial clause providing extra information about sitting. The entire clause MUST be enclosed in at least commas.

My suggestion would be

The pastor, sitting on his porch, motioned for me to park in the rear when I pulled up to his house.

The adverbial clause should be linked to motioning, not to how long the pastor may have been sitting on his porch before he pulled up.

Don't know how we got here, but what was said before was about President and Secretary of State, not VP.

The Secretary of state is also in the successor list. So my original objection on a constitutional issue over Bill not being able to take over as president would still apply.

The Secretary of state is also in the successor list. So my original objection on a constitutional issue over Bill not being able to take over as president would still apply.

Other than the VP (whose only reason for existence is as the president's successor) others in the line of succession can be skipped over if they're otherwise ineligible.

Alternate sentence that could have happened in real life. She took a photograph of her uncles, the President and the Attorney General.

I forgot about that one, but you're right, the husband and wife president and vice president is almost impossible.

Though I suppose if you had a mixed gender pair, the could get married after assuming office.

Some of us are attempting to have a serious exchange about an issue of great importance to new writers - is the use serial commas in lists less likely to result in them writing ambiguous sentences?
Anyone interested in the purpose of this forum would have accepted I may not have identified every precondition for the interpretation of one statement to be factual, and it was merely a convenient illustration they would easily understand, so I could make a point about grammar.
I suggest you think seriously about the name of this President of the United States - the main character on House of Cards!

is the use serial commas in lists less likely to result in them writing ambiguous sentences?

You picked the worst possible example. The only condition under which it is remotely ambiguous is nearly impossible.

As the originating statement stands, no one who has ever passed a US civics course will read it as anything but four people in the picture no matter how you punctuate it.

If you want to have a serous discussion, get over it an pick a better example.

blanketly

NEVER, EVER suggested anything remotely like 'blanketly', and in fact I have stressed the opposite repeatedly on this thread.

So far, everyone agrees that readers are unlikely to notice a single missing/additional comma,

Finally, a cogent point from you that there may be something better that using serial commas with care.

I will give it the consideration it seems worthy of.

EDIT TO ADD

To CW, I apologise for the intemperate tone of this post. I have become somewhat frustrated trying to drag this (and the other) thread back to the question of what is the better choice for NEW writers. I think the answer for experienced, quality writers is obviously - whatever they feel more comfortable using!

I can't differentiate how serial commas would make anything clearer

IMHO, Neither style is more clear WHEN used correctly.

For example, with the sentence 'He met A, B and C.' - where 'B and C' could be interpreted as a description of 'A'.

If used correctly, both styles require:

'He met A, B and C' when he only met A, but

'He met A, B, and C' when the three are different.

I am not convinced by the arguments of you or EB that correct use of either style by the writer is more or less likely to result in misinterpretations by readers.

I am convinced as a new writer I would be more likely make mistakes myself if my usual style was non-serial comma.

I will glad elaborate on why I am convinced of that - BUT ONLY to other new writers who have not yet formed an opinion either way.

On that basis my recommendation to other new writers on this issue is:

Ignore what all obstinate, experienced blowhards are saying on this this issue. For this issue you should trust a dedicated newbie instead, and this dedicated newbie is convinced he will make less errors if he adopts the serial comma as his usual practice, BUT neither style can diminish the need to understand what you are doing, and showing due caution while writing.

Ignore what all obstinate, experienced blowhards are saying on this this issue. For this issue you should trust a dedicated newbie instead

I say ignore what they are all saying and write the way you are used to. If someone calls you on it and can show you it is better the other way, consider the opinion and make the call yourself.

I say ignore what they are all saying and write the way you are used to. If someone calls you on it and can show you it is better the other way, consider the opinion and make the call yourself.

The important thing is to be clear, especially where there are competing grammatical systems at play.

As an example EB wrote "John met with Anna's brothers (Tom, Dick, and Harry), Fred and Mike. " which is clear though I personally find the brackets a mite off-putting.
I would have written that sentence as
John met with Anna's brothers Tom, Dick, and Harry as well as Fred and Mike. (You can argue until the cows come home whether there should be a comma after Harry; I simply look for clarity)

I say ignore what they are all saying and write the way you are used to.

(This reply applies equally to sejintenej)

THANK YOU for a voice of moderation.

I get your drift, but I was fully aware of those principles. I have some other considerations now.

Firstly, I cannot write as I'm "used to", that would be like in my pre-creative writing days, and NOBODY would want that.

I want my writing to employ consistent styles, SO THAT, different meanings can be conveyed WHEN I do something unusual for me.

I have made my choice about serial commas, or not, and have moved onto other choices I need to make, for example, choosing the circumstances I use unquoted italics and quoted italics.

Mundane stuff really, but I do not want my readers distracted from the insight, wit and beauty of my words because of inconsistencies in my punctuation or fonts.

So how does that make us both guilty of the same crime?

Neither guilty of anything! Merely, with the particular points you were contesting, I (inexperienced little old me), cannot see any compelling case from either that one side is better, BUT ONLY in regard to frequency of misinterpretations by readers,

everyone here insists that I'm clearly in the wrong

My impression is 'everybody here' will stop saying anything as soon as you stop insisting they are not seeing your point.
I think we all accept your personal choice is entirely suitable for you, but the only point that has ever interested me is what will be easiest for NEW writers to use to reduce THEIR ERRORS, and if possible minimise reader misunderstandings.

you're agreeing that neither the serial comma rule or the non-serial comma rule will eliminate more errors!

I'm agreeing experienced writers can be error free using either style, I'm asking what's best for writers who may still male some mistakes.

The whole point is less confusing writing

I can see this benefit for readers if writers use the serial comma style CORRECTLY.

As soon as a reader recognises a list has started, every comma they encounter indicates another item in the list is coming.

As soon as they see comma then and (or equivalent) they know the coming item is the last in this list, and the list ends with the next punctuation mark.

It REALLY is that simple. Although items in lists may be complicated monsters, the comma always tells them what type of thing what is following will be.

EDIT TO ADD -

I was short of time when posted this. I was using internet access in a cafe, over an hour after the cafe had stopped serving new customers and the mall had turned the lights off for the outside area.
I think I have something here, but it's definitely INCOMPLETE.
If it's useful at all, it would need a qualifier to 'every comma they encounter'.
I think that could be 'every comma they encounter in a position where it could be ending an item in a list'.
I want to experiment with that. I want to test below after writing the Lock Ness Monster of all 'items' possible in a list - a 60+ word atrocity with 20+ punctuation marks. I want to TEST if a reader parsing that could decide every comma within that item MUST be there for a purpose other than to end the current item in a list.

Your example above discussed the correct usage for what I think are called 'restrictive appositives'.

I recently posted this on another thread:

I'm not certain I understand the grammar for this, but I think 'Mr. Smith' is a 'restrictive appositive', a noun that identifies the preceding noun, and they are shown with NO punctuation mark. If that is so, the best option [to show Mr. Smith was the donor of the cup] is simply:

'Those at the ceremony were the commodore, the fleet captain, the donor of the cup Mr. Smith, and Mr. Jones.'

Did I get that right? Does that sentence identify the FOUR people at the ceremony correctly?

I think very few readers would understand that distinction, but I still think if writers care about their readers' experience, they should seek to use grammar and punctuation correctly (or when options exist, consistently using whatever style(s) they prefer.
I KEEP ON noticing examples where punctuation rules/guidelines DO NOT MANDATE anything to writers. Instead, the take the way language is actually spoken and IDENTIFY how a writer may use punctuation marks so readers will naturally 'hear' what is written in the way the writer 'said' it.

The brothers case above seems another example of that. If there are only two brothers, a speaker would not pause before listing their names, but they would pause if it was only two of the brothers being listed.

Readers do not need to know this rule. If writers punctuate correctly, most readers will hear the implication there are only two brothers when a read the version without a comma.

Would you be kind enough to elaborate further on the conditions where commas are NOT optional, anf the absence of a comma indicates something is identified, or narrowed down.

As I understand it, that is required to be correct in circumstances beyond the naming of the preceding noun, and includes (but is not restricted to) phrases beginning with 'who' and 'which'.

In particular, are there circumstances where the comma should not be omitted for phrases beginning with 'who' and 'which'.

In the future I will simply look things up in my copy of CMOS, but it will be at least a few weeks before I am in a country where I can buy that book.

I'm not good at grammar

For someone who claims they're not good at grammar, you've been helpful something I can use in practice AGAIN here. Like CW, I've learned something new today. The terminology 'restrictive appositives' is something I'd always be prone to get wrong. My example was wrong because I'd answered that test question incorrectly.

BUT, Is this non-essential? Does the sentence mean the same if you delete it?, They are questions I probably can answer correctly in the future, and not be at risk of a trip to the loonie bin.

My alternatives for my example sentence (to show only four people) where either brackets around Mr. Smith, or semi-colons to separate all elements of the list.

but the solution is to restructure the sentence to avoid confusion

It WAS NOT my sentence.

It came from the 1934 style book of the New York Herald Tribune. That suggested for the vesrion below, 'With the comma, it reads as if Mr. Smith was the donor of the cup.'

"Those at the ceremony were the commodore, the fleet captain, the donor of the cup, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Jones."

I think (If you are consistently using serial commas in lists) then that version must be five people - because every new comma shows another item in a list is coming.
If such a writer needs to show only four people, they cannot have a comma before Mr. Smith. I can think of three versions that would show only four people:
1. Those at the ceremony were the commodore; the fleet captain; the donor of the cup, Mr. Smith; and Mr. Jones.
2. Those at the ceremony were the commodore, the fleet captain, the donor of the cup (Mr. Smith), and Mr. Jones.
3. Those at the ceremony were the commodore, the fleet captain, the donor of the cup Mr. Smith, and Mr. Jones.

The last I believe is valid because 'Mr. Smith' could be deleted without changing the meaning of the sentence - it shows he was the donor of the cup.

I may reconsider these opinions in a few weeks time when I am in a country where I can find a copy of CMOS.

If "Mr. Smith" can be deleted, then the comma is needed. However, in this example, the comma should not be there to make it clear the donor and Smith are not two separate people. I actually like #1, using semicolons.

I will wait until I have CMOS in my hands before suggesting to my authors they could rely on my opinion.
I agree with #1 too, a considerate author would know that is something readers will easily understand.
As I said, it was not my sentence.
Even if they know when it correct to not use a comma, many readers will not. I would not use that in fiction, but if I was submitting a paper as a university student I could regard it as something my marker should know.

If "Mr. Smith" can be deleted, then the comma is needed. However, in this example, the comma should not be there to make it clear the donor and Smith are not two separate people. I actually like #1, using semicolons.

I will wait until I have CMOS in my hands before suggesting to my authors they could rely on my opinion.
I agree with #1 too, a considerate author would know that is something readers will easily understand.
As I said, it was not my sentence.
Even if they know when it correct to not use a comma, many readers will not. I would not use that in fiction, but if I was submitting a paper as a university student I could regard it as something my marker should know.

"Those at the ceremony were the commodore, the fleet captain, Mr. Smith (the donor of the cup), and Mr. Jones."

I think this would also be valid.

Yes, I agree. Using either brackets or semi-colons were my options for what an author should do to ensure there is no ambiguity.
I stress, it was not my sentence. It comes from a NY Times Style Guide in 1934, and I've been discussing where their advice to writers was wrong.
Apparently back in those days, commas were very cheap, but all other punctuation marks expensive. I can see no other reason for their poor advise to writers then.