Grammar Mishaps: The Oxford Comma
72
|
The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation: An Easy-to-Use Guide with Clear Rules, Real-World Examples, and Reproducible Quizzes
Price: $8.74
List Price: $14.95 |
What is the Oxford Comma?
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
I think you should only use a semi-colon if the clause to follow is a claridfication, but also is able to stand alone as a separate sentence.
I think for a stronger pause you should be using a dash--double hyphen for most keyboards--or an elispes... don't you think?
Hi Chris,
I tend to follow more strict rules with semi-colons as well. I agree that a semi-colon can be used to link a clarification sentence, but i don't think this is its only purpose. I think it's also acceptable to connect two related thoughts by a semi-colon. I like your thoughts on the dash or double hypen. I don't use this very much in my writing, but I may start now. ;) I enjoy your grammar hubs! Thanks!
I always use the Oxford comma. Consider the following sentence:"Our dinners last week were meatloaf, macaroni and cheese, and meat tortillas." "Our dinners last week were meatloaf, macaroni and cheese and meat tortillas."The latter sentence is more confusing because it is not clear whether we had macaroni and cheese or cheese and meat tortillas (although logically it would make more sense for the former to be true, we cannot be certain).Excluding the Oxford comma may also change the meaning of the sentence. I love Wikipedia's example of the Oxford comma."I'd like to thank my parents, George W. Bush, and Sinéad O'Connor."is quite different from"I'd like to thank my parents, George W. Bush and Sinéad O'Connor."In lists of three or more, I picture the punctuation finishing off each item and the conjunction introducing the last item. The Oxford comma fits this definition, so it is the method I prefer.
Thanks for your comments, Jonathon. I prefer not to use the Oxford comma when I'm writing one word list, e.g., she enjoys cooking, traveling and dancing. However, with lists that may be confusing, I always use the comma (like in your example above, "our dinners last week...".) This is definitely a rule that is up for discussion, and I love the banter!! ;)
I think you should think also along how you would read it aloud, where a comma represents a natural pause.
If you read out the sentence used above:
"The man was tall... dark... and handsome" (where "..." is a pause in speech) - it sounds a lot more eloquent than "The man was tall... dark and handsome."
I advocate the use of the Oxford comma. In cases where it might be confusing to use it, I reword the sentence such that it isn't confusing/ambiguous.
BTW, there's a typo in your doc:
"If the comma is suppose to..." should read "If the comma is supposed to..." ;)
I prefer to use the Oxford comma, despite the belief by some that it is redundant. Commas are said to indicate pause; you wouldn't say a man is "tall...(pause)......dark and handsome". You would say he is "tall... (pause).. dark.. (pause).. and handsome.
Joycel's example illustrates this perfectly.
Speaking of redundancy, I see J already beat me to the point!
Jonathon VS said: "Our dinners last week were meatloaf, macaroni and cheese and meat tortillas."
This is a perfect example of the misrepresentation that users of the Oxford comma make about those who don't use it. Non-users do not refuse to use it under any circumstances - they use it when it's needed. Thus, the sentence above would clearly need, and would be given, a comma after cheese. On the other hand, it is equally prescriptive (and wrong) to insist that users of the Oxford comma MUST use a comma wherever 'and' or 'or' appear. In that case, taking the same sentence as above, it's equally possible to have macaroni on its own, with cheese and meat tortillas forming another dish. Those who misrepresent the Oxford comma would end up with: "Our dinners last week were meatloaf, macaroni, cheese, and meat tortillas",which obviously makes 4 dishes: (1) meatloaf, (2) macaroni, (2) cheese and (4) meat tortillas.
And that's the whole point. This silly bickering about whether to use the Oxford comma or not is based on two completely incorrect premises:
1) Users of the Oxford comma ALWAYS put it before EVERY conjunction, whether that makes sense or not.
2) Non-users NEVER use a comma before ANY conjunction, whether that makes sense or not.
Both are utter nonsense, and betray not only a fundamental ignorance of different (and equally acceptable) usage but of basic rules of grammar. Correct usage or non-usage of a list comma should result in no ambiguity, and neither should be considered as 'wrong'.
Joycel said: Many years ago I learned about an estate matter which used the American rule of commas in a list. An estate was left to three children; "Tom," "Dick" and "Harry."
I have two doubts about the veracity of this (of the report, not of Joycel). Despite it being named the 'Oxford' comma, it is far more common for it to be used in US than in UK English (and in fact, is also termed the Harvard comma). Hence, if this really did use the 'American rule', it would have used "Tom, Dick, and Harry", with both commas. However, there have been similar cases. Precisely because of this problem of variation, legal documents are generally very minimal with the punctuation (one reason why they're so turgid to read), and the document would have been far more likely to have read: "an equal share each to my son Tom my son Dick and my son Harry".
I always use a serial comma, and in the very few cases where it would actually introduce confusion, I recast my sentence. To me, a comma represents not a siple conjunction, but a pause in either the spoken cadence of a sentence or in the mental voice as I read. Thus this sentence:
"I went to the market and bought apples, oranges and bananas."
Sounds in my head as I read, "...apples, orangesandbananas." Without fail, I cannot read sentences without it and have them not sound jumbled up. Leaving out a serial comma is a serious pet peeve of mine, and I immediately am turned off from reading any text which chooses to leave it out.
I believe we should not use that comma before the word And, in particular, when we are listing names or Items. To me it sounds awkward to use comma before the word And in a listed items. Any fool can understand that the Will mentioned above ( That of Tom, Dick and Harry) was supposed to be equally divided between the three. Why the Judge should not split the amount in terms of age, height, breadt, hatred and love towards their father? [ Did I use Love & Hatred as one here? Was it right? Do love & hatred have the same meaning? Absolutelely no. Then, Would it not it be be fair for the Juge to use some common sense & logics in dividing the wealth among the three boys?
Samawale ( eggyolksa@yahoo.com)
Simply always using the comma would be the best solution to this problem. If the rule were to just use it, then its non-inclusion would always be the only error; the reader would not be left wondering whether there is an intentional omission or not. As I was taught, "the serial comma provides the last iota of clarity." It has served me well.
What about the use of a comma preceding the last 'and' in any particular sentence? Not where there is a list of items in the sentence (such as the use of an oxford comma alluded to above), but where a comma has simply been used to provide a pause in the cadence of the sentence. I was always taught never to use a comma in this fashion, however I am noticing it increasingly more in recent times?
No one mentioned the book signed "To my parents, God and the Virgin Mary."
Wow, some great grammar banter in the comments here. I think George Orwell's writing is a great example of excellent grammar. Gives a good target to aim for.
|
Excel Grammar, Spelling, Vocabulary & Punctuation
Current Bid: $4.54
|
| No Photo |
A Norton Pocket Guide to Grammar and Punctuation, Very
Current Bid: $3.38
|
![Bad grammar makes me [sic]](http://s3.hubimg.com/u/595850_50.jpg "Bad grammar makes me [sic]")
StuartJ says:
3 years ago
I was influenced by a famous book on punctuation by Eric Partridge "You Have a Point There", in which he recommended the use of the "serial comma" as I think it is also known.
Those who argue in favour of it often take the line that with it used, there is never any ambiguity, but without it, there often is; and so for the sake of consistency it should always be used.
I have never thought of the comma being used instead of 'and' or 'or', but rather that commas and other punctuation should be used where they improve the clarity of the writing.
But my usage does differ from modern American practice where a much stricter view of the way many stops should be used is taken. I tend, for example, to use a semi-colon where ever I feel that I need a stronger stop than a comma, whereas many Americans feel that they should be used only in accordance with strict rules.
I think where punctuation is concerned there is a lot of variation in the way different writers approach it -- especially more literary type writers.