# The Oxford comma - Your Opinion



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

*To my parents, Ayn Rand and God. *

*To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God.*

I'm puzzled regarding the use of Oxford comma.. Should I use it when writing articles? The New York Times and Chicago Manual of Style disagree.

What's your take?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I have always maintained that three items in a list should be separated by a comma, otherwise the last two are grouped together as your excellent example shows. Thus, I've always been a bit miffed at the the spelling of popular groups such as "Medeski, Martin and Wood," or "Emerson, Lake and Palmer." 

But I am not a writer.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I think clarity should be the rule. Most people are reading as fast as they can, so any chance for ambiguity needs to be avoided.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I was always under the impression that a comma shouldn't be used before certain conjunctives but my schooling was a long time ago. 

Reminds me of a literary odd-ball written by an 18th century New England tycoon called Timothy Dexter. He was semi-literate and when he wrote his rambling and often nonsensical autobiography (called 'Plain Truths In A Homespun Dress' or 'A Pickle For The Knowing Ones') he huffily had a page at the end printed with nothing but punctuation marks so the readers can 'pepper and salt it as they please'.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

In a list there should never be a comma before the 'and' before the final name. However, if one is starting a completely new clause (and you need to be careful how you do that, beginning with 'and'), a comma can be allowed.

Smug Brit and anally-retentive grammarian.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

I prefer using the oxford comma. I find it makes my writing it a lot clearer and easier to understand.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Depends on the effect I want; sometimes the [and], sometimes a technically incorrect comma, never both. If the reader doesn't follow, I wasn't writing for him anyway.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Delicious Manager said:


> In a list there should never be a comma before the 'and' before the final name. However, if one is starting a completely new clause (and you need to be careful how you do that, beginning with 'and'), a comma can be allowed.
> 
> Smug Brit and anally-retentive grammarian.


This is what Brits are taught in school to keep things simple, but it's not really true. Clarity should certainly be the priority, whether you're writing short lists or complex sentences, and it will usually be the case that _adding_ an Oxford comma will never make things more ambiguous, while leaving it out could. So, if in doubt, use it, otherwise just go by personal preference.

Smugger Brit and English degree undergrad


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Perhaps we should have a contest to see who can be 'smuggest'. I might win because I've been practising for around 30 years longer than you 

I liked your new clause


> , and it will usually be the case that adding an Oxford comma will never make things more ambiguous, while leaving it out could.


Nicely done!


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

I assume you all know the example of the bear who eats, shoots, and leaves, right?:lol:


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Almaviva said:


> I assume you all know the example of the bear who eats, shoots, and leaves, right?:lol:


Yes. I also know the example of the bear who eats shoots and leaves.

An extra comma here after 'shoots' would cause confusion: does the bear eat some shoots and then leave (quit) or is he/she feasting on leaves and shoots?

Still smug.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth (Apr 14, 2010)

There are of course basic rules for the use of punctuation in the English language; a brief list may be found in a collegiate dictionary.

There is also something called 'academic discourse'--a deadly American monstrosity, I believe--(for I rarely see British university writing as dessicated and boring as that of 'our American cousins').

Still, I'm personally convinced that advanced writers should always be aware that they are constructing a message-text within a certain communication-system to convey their thoughts from their own minds to another mind: therefore, these 'text-constructors'--after having acquainted themselves throughly with the proper rules for punctuation usage--should feel free to use punctuation as they see fit, in order to make their message as apprehensible as possible.

While constructing a text, Wilde once said something to the effect that, 'I spent all morning taking out a comma; I spent all afternoon putting it back once again'.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

Please tell this foreigner what an "Oxford Comma" is.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Hazel said:


> Please tell this foreigner what an "Oxford Comma" is.


An "Oxford comma' is a 'serial comma' - this indicates the use of a comma after the 'and' in a list before the final noun. This is far more prevalent in the USA than in the UK (where I am), where we think it's rather unnecessary unless needed to clarify ambiguity.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

Delicious Manager said:


> An "Oxford comma' is a 'serial comma' - this indicates the use of a comma after the 'and' in a list before the final noun. This is far more prevalent in the USA than in the UK (where I am), where we think it's rather unnecessary unless needed to clarify ambiguity.


Thank you. I think I understand but, if I do, I wasn't aware that we in America use that. Are you saying that we'd write: " red, white and, blue" or "red, white, and blue"? I don't think so. I'd write "red, white and blue".

I'll have to keep an eye out for that.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Hazel said:


> Thank you. I think I understand but, if I do, I wasn't aware that we in America use that. Are you saying that we'd write: " red, white and, blue" or "red, white, and blue"? I don't think so. I'd write "red, white and blue".
> 
> I'll have to keep an eye out for that.


Sorry, my mistake. I should have written BEFORE the 'and' as in "red, white, and blue", whereas we would always rite "red, white and blue". I am not suggesting ALL Americans do it, only that the 'serial comma' is far more prevalent in the US than on this side of The Pond.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

Delicious Manager said:


> Sorry, my mistake. I should have written BEFORE the 'and' as in "red, white, and blue", whereas we would always rite "red, white and blue". I am not suggesting ALL Americans do it, only that the 'serial comma' is far more prevalent in the US than on this side of The Pond.


All right. Thank you. Something new for me. It does seem totally unnecessary but what do I know?


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

Hazel said:


> All right. Thank you. Something new for me. It does seem totally unnecessary but what do I know?


Well, take the example in the beginning of the thread with parents, Ayn Rand and God.
If you write "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God", you're saying that Ayn Rand and God are your parents. If you write "To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God", then you are writing to four different people; your two parents, Ayn Rand, and God. The serial comma helps getting rid of any ambiguity in writing.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Hazel said:


> All right. Thank you. Something new for me. It does seem totally unnecessary but what do I know?


The supposed ambiguity occurs in a series such as 'the rattle snake meat choices are grilled, roasted, boiled and fried', wherein a reader could assume that in one choice the meat is both boiled and fried.

Personally, I'd go for grilled.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Aksel said:


> Well, take the example in the beginning of the thread with parents, Ayn Rand and God.
> If you write "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God", you're saying that Ayn Rand and God are your parents. If you write "To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God", then you are writing to four different people; your two parents, Ayn Rand, and God. The serial comma helps getting rid of any ambiguity in writing.


Stating that one's parents are Ayn Rand and God smacks of miscegenation.

:devil:


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

Aksel said:


> Well, take the example in the beginning of the thread with parents, Ayn Rand and God.
> If you write "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God", you're saying that Ayn Rand and God are your parents. If you write "To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God", then you are writing to four different people; your two parents, Ayn Rand, and God. The serial comma helps getting rid of any ambiguity in writing.


You are absolutely right except for one thing. "Parents" is plural but you have only one parent there. Fix that and you are right. However, is that a series? That is an identification phrase, I think.

"To my parents, Ann Rand and (father's name), and (to) God. Yes, you'd need a comma there.

So, the test is "what reads correctly?"


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hazel said:


> You are absolutely right except for one thing. "Parents" is plural but you have only one parent there. Fix that and you are right. However, is that a series? That is an identification phrase, I think.
> 
> "To my parents, Ann Rand and (father's name), and (to) God. Yes, you'd need a comma there.
> 
> So, the test is "what reads correctly?"


The sentence: "To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God" is actually correct, but the syntax is still confusing even with a comma! You read it with the supposition that ", Ayn Rand," is a sub-ordinate clause, _i.e._ an elaboration on the meaning of 'my parents', but the sentence is actually stating that the speaker is addressing the following people: their parents *and* Ayn Rand *and* God.

Of course, it would be clumsy to use so many 'and's, and semi-colons seem inappropriate, so you just have to assume that the meaning of the sentence is the only one that makes sense grammatically.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

Polednice said:


> The sentence: "To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God" is actually correct, but the syntax is still confusing even with a comma! You read it with the supposition that ", Ayn Rand," is a sub-ordinate clause, _i.e._ an elaboration on the meaning of 'my parents', but the sentence is actually stating that the speaker is addressing the following people: their parents *and* Ayn Rand *and* God.
> 
> Of course, it would be clumsy to use so many 'and's, and semi-colons seem inappropriate, so you just have to assume that the meaning of the sentence is the only one that makes sense grammatically.


Oops! Didn't I just prove it was confusing? I don't think 'and' would be inappropriate there. If it feels wrong, how about 'to'? "to my parents, to Ayn Rand and to God".


----------



## AmateurComposer (Sep 13, 2009)

The issue is clear, but how is "Oxford" involved in this? I am curious about the history of the name "the Oxford comma".


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

The first priority must be to avoid ambiguity. But after that, for me it's a matter of the music and drama of the words. If I'm in doubt, I imagine the sentence spoken aloud (sometimes actually voicing it), and see where I want the pauses - the breathing - to fall. Punctuation is a tool at the writer's disposal through which he can gently help the reader towards reading the text in a particular way.

So this, for example, hurries the reader on to the end of the sentence and loses effect somewhat:

'The soldier was lying on the wet ground: crumpled, broken and dead.'

Whereas in this version, the final comma slows down the momentum of the sentence at the end, provides space for a breath, and gives more stress to the word 'dead': 

'The soldier was lying on the wet ground: crumpled, broken, and dead.'


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

AmateurComposer said:


> The issue is clear, but how is "Oxford" involved in this? I am curious about the history of the name "the Oxford comma".


I don't actually know, but I would guess that it's because it's associated with stuffy, possibly over-worked academic writing. Wikipedia suggests it's also sometimes called the Harvard Comma (so the link is with the prestigious universities).


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

I like to use it, when it's warranted. It adds clarity. I have nothing against it, and don't feel that it is stuffy. But then, I tend to use too many commas anyway.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 23, 2010)

AmateurComposer said:


> The issue is clear, but how is "Oxford" involved in this? I am curious about the history of the name "the Oxford comma".


Try this very succinct explanation:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/page/oxfordcomma


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

To my parents , Ayn Rand  and :devil:God. Nowadays we're out of print and very much in on the internet, where these :tiphat::lol: influence our reading, the pace of our reading, in short: the punctuation.


----------



## wingracer (Mar 7, 2011)

All ambiguity could be removed by changing the order.

To God, Ayn Rand and my parents...

No matter which way you put the commas, it makes sense.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

peeyaj said:


> *To my parents, Ayn Rand and God. *
> 
> *To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God.*
> 
> ...


Allowing for the possible interpretation of who the parents are when breaking the sentence down it probably would have been better to change the order and say 'To God, Ayn Rand and my parents' - no ambiguity there, nor no need for a second comma!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

elgars ghost said:


> Allowing for the possible interpretation of who the parents are when breaking the sentence down it probably would have been better to change the order and say 'To God, Ayn Rand and my parents' - no ambiguity there, nor no need for a second comma!


There's just a potential stylistic problem with that if the writer wants the three adressees in order of importance, and want the parents to come first. Going further down the line of potentially excessive punctuation, it could be solved with a colon ("To: my parents, Ayn Rand, and God"), as it more clearly demonstrates that each component separated by a comma is a single item in a list.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Wingracer - I've just noticed your post that was immediately before mine. Sorry - I wasn't copying, honest!


----------



## wingracer (Mar 7, 2011)

elgars ghost said:


> Wingracer - I've just noticed your post that was immediately before mine. Sorry - I wasn't copying, honest!


No problem, great minds think alike


----------



## gurthbruins (May 12, 2010)

- As a very concerned writer, I say Hilltroll72's *Depends on the effect I want*, supported by Polednice, says it best for me.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Delicious Manager said:


> In a list there should never be a comma before the 'and' before the final name. However, if one is starting a completely new clause (and you need to be careful how you do that, beginning with 'and'), a comma can be allowed.
> 
> Smug Brit and anally-retentive grammarian.


I concour with *Delicious Manager*.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

I'd separate Ayn Rand from people I like as much as possible. Go for it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2011)

I tell my students always to use it--never risk ambiguity. How do you suppose Ted interpreted this statement in his father's will?

"Ted, Steve and Cindy will share $1,000,000." (He gets half--Steve and Cindy share a half--the court agreed!)


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Kontrapunctus said:


> I tell my students to always use it--never risk ambiguity. How do you suppose Ted interpreted this statement in his father's will?
> 
> "Ted, Steve and Cindy will share $1,000,000." (He gets half--Steve and Cindy share a half--the court agreed!)


The judge needs to go back to school!


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Commas are a way of grouping information in written language, in the same way as tonal units in spoken language. No-one regulates how to insert pauses when you are speaking, so why should there be prescription in written language if it leads to the kind of confusion in Kontrapunctus' example? I say ditch the rule and favour clarity and explicitness.


----------



## Theophrastus (Aug 13, 2011)

Polednice said:


> This is what Brits are taught in school to keep things simple, but it's not really true. Clarity should certainly be the priority, whether you're writing short lists or complex sentences, and it will usually be the case that _adding_ an Oxford comma will never make things more ambiguous, while leaving it out could. So, if in doubt, use it, otherwise just go by personal preference.
> 
> Smugger Brit and English degree undergrad


Use the Oxford comma! Everything we were taught in school was wrong anyway.


----------

