The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
Mollie Hemingway, Ed. ·
Oct 5, 2011 at 8:30am
As a friend commented, "If you read the second sentence like that, you're illiterate." And I say that as a proud user of the serial comma. Surely there are better examples.
- Comment (42)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
I too am a proud user of the serial comma. It just looks right.
I developed this bias from Strunk and White.
Edited on Oct 5, 2011 at 8:38amRe: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
I like this one better. But not sure if Uncle Joe in a thong and tassels is CoC compliant...
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
Also, this post has put me in the mood to listen to the song "Oxford Comma" by Vampire Weekend. I'd post a link, but unfortunately the song is even less CoC compliant than the graphic I just posted.
Oct '10
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
Not sure I'm addressing your point, but I think there's a Frost poem with the line "...the woods were lovely, dark and deep."
I was told by the head of an English department that Frost's use of "lovely" would've been a crime had he included the Oxford comma, because then he would've simply been describing the woods using three adjectives, and "lovely" is a banal, meaningless adjective for that purpose. Instead, the absence of the Oxford comma conveyed that he was explaining why the woods were lovely - because they were dark and deep.
I think the point was that the Oxford comma was to be used in a list (eggs, toast, and orange juice) and the Oxford comma was to be avoided when the latter two items in a sequence were intended to expand upon the first item in a sequence, or that the absence of the OC means that the latter two items are describing the first item (thus, omitting it in your example would technically be incorrect).
At least that's what I got out of that conversation, but I'm a numbers guy so I may have missed the point completely.
Sep '10
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
As an editor, I use the traditional serial comma, per university press style. It was when I was a daily beat reporter that I discovered it was AP style to drop the serial comma (for space: really?). What's bothersome to me is when a writer drops the comma, thinking it's a serial comma, when actually it's necessary to tell the reader that a new independent clause follows, which sometimes makes me need to backtrack.
By the way, for anyone wanting to use an actual em dash ( — ) rather than two hyphens ( -- ) in their posts, try the following (works in every text program I know of): hold down the Alt key and, at the same time, keystroke 1 5 0 1 on the number keys on the right-hand side of the keyboard. If you want an en dash ( – ), do the same but hit 1 5 0 0 rather than 1 5 0 1.
Nov '10
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
You probably have seen the little book entitled Eats, Shoots and Leaves. It makes what I consider to be an irrefutable case for the Strunk and White rule.
Nov '10
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
To think that I get all of this for only $3.58 per month!
Sep '10
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
Yes. As punctuated, Frost is clarifying his use of the broad term "lovely" and not listing equal adjectives modifying "the woods." (This is why strict adherence to a rule can sometimes defeat the author's intended meaning.)
dittoheadadt: ... there's a Frost poem with the line "...the woods were lovely, dark and deep."
I was told ... that Frost's use of "lovely" would've been a crime had he included the Oxford comma, because then he would've simply been describing the woods using three adjectives, and "lovely" is a banal, meaningless adjective for that purpose. Instead, the absence of the Oxford comma conveyed that he was explaining why the woods were lovely - because they were dark and deep.
I think the point was that the Oxford comma was to be used in a list (eggs, toast, and orange juice) and the Oxford comma was to be avoided when the latter two items in a sequence were intended to expand upon the first item in a sequence, or that the absence of the OC means that the latter two items are describing the first item (thus, omitting it in your example would technically be incorrect).
Oct 5 at 8:46am
Sep '10
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
In my experience, the numbers guys (philosophers, mathematicians, engineers) are much better at grammar than the language guys (read any and all poststructuralists, critical theorists, communications, culture studies).
dittoheadadt:
At least that's what I got out of that conversation, but I'm a numbers guy so I may have missed the point completely. · Oct 5 at 8:46am
May '10
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
How trivial, boring, and pedantic. I want to scream, shout and run away. (What's the verdict on ending a sentence with a preposition?)
Jun '11
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
My (bitter) experience is that the numbers guys have a really, really hard time with language. They have difficulty with grammar, but particularly detecting figures of speech. (There are, of course, exceptions.)
Jun '11
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
It is something up with I will not put.
Jun '10
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
1. Of course a literate person will figure out the intended meaning, *despite* what was written. But he may parse the sentence as suggested by the punctuation, recognize that as implausible, and then have to reparse it to get the right meaning. Good writers don't send readers down blind alleys.
2. Trusting the writer to use the Oxford comma is precisely what allows Frost to distinguish between the two possibilities. Someone who thinks Frost is breaking the rule doesn't understand the rule.
3. A more mundane example: "There were dogs of all shades -- brown, gold, black and white." How many dogs are there? Three, the third being two-toned. The author is using the rhetorical device called "asyndeton", the omitting of conjunctions (opposite of the Biblical "polysyndeton" that puts "and" between all elements of list). Without the Oxford comma, it is impossible to write the sentence with the intended meaning, expressed in the intended way. Not adopting the O.C. rule is pure loss: everything you can say using the other comma rule can be said using O.C., but there are things you can say with the O.C. that can't be said with the other.
May '10
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
dittoheadadt: Not sure I'm addressing your point, but I think there's a Frost poem with the line "...the woods were lovely, dark and deep."
I was told by the head of an English department that Frost's use of "lovely" would've been a crime had he included the Oxford comma, because then he would've simply been describing the woods using three adjectives, and "lovely" is a banal, meaningless adjective for that purpose. Instead, the absence of the Oxford comma conveyed that he was explaining why the woods were lovely - because they were dark and deep.
I think the point was that the Oxford comma was to be used in a list (eggs, toast, and orange juice) and the Oxford comma was to be avoided when the latter two items in a sequence were intended to expand upon the first item in a sequence, or that the absence of the OC means that the latter two items are describing the first item (thus, omitting it in your example would technically be incorrect).
What you're describing would not be an Oxford comma, it would be a comma demarcating an adjective clause (or some other kind of clause).
May '10
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
Christopher Esget: It is something up with I will not put. · Oct 5 at 9:35am
A preposition is a fine thing to end a sentence with.
May '10
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
I just showed your comment to my coworker, who is one of the most archetypal engineers I know, and here was his email reply:
(He fired up the old Postmodernism Generator.)
Edited on Oct 5, 2011 at 10:24amMay '11
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
Mrs. Reynolds had been teaching High School English for just about ever. (We were convinced she taught George Washington. Yes, that George Washington.) She used the Harbrace Handbook to correct our papers. Red pen numbers in the margin. We had to look up the reference and write the reference number and reference text on the back of the page. That woman had the darn book memorized. She may have helped write it for all we knew. It did not take many times of writing references on the back of pages to cure grammar problems. She would have known the exact reference for the OC.
The grammar was tough but she made the literature fun. I will never forget Casabianca.
Mar '11
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
My use of commas is a disaster area. I have forgotten what I was taught at school, and have kinda given up on using em properly, as indeed I have spelling. I did find the explanation fascinating, and didn't even know there was a name for such use of commas.
Fortunately, with Twitter, it don't matter anymore.
Apr '11
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
What about the poor neglected semicolon? "The woods were lovely; dark and deep" works for me, but then again, I'm an engineer.
Sep '10
Re: The Oxford Comma is Great, But Not For This Reason
I started the day, relatively secure in my grammar self-confidence. Thanks for making me feel insecure, Ricochet.
I'm a liberal comma and semicolon user; I figure it's better to be safe than sorry, right? If using too many commas is wrong, then I don't want to be right.