ChiefsPlanet - Poop The Oxford Comma

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- -

The Oxford Comma (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=284434)

who gives a **** about an oxford comma

Ya' know fish, if you really hate to use two spaces. You can customize the space you want to be a tad wider, but not as much as two typewriter spaces if it bothers you so much.

Without. Learned that a looooong time ago.

Two spaces after a period is correct. Absolutely correct. But I could care less about that one.

Chiefs, Food, and GrammarPlanet

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox (Post 10697820)

A comma denotes a pause. The pause after Denver is the same length as the pause after Oakland; therefore, the comma belongs.

Also consider the following:

The regular characters on Gilligan's Island were: Gilligan, the Skipper, the Professor, Ginger, Mary Anne, and Mr. and Mrs Howell.

versus

The regular characters on Gilligan's Island were: Gilligan, the Skipper, the Professor, Ginger, Mary Anne and Mr. and Mrs Howell.

The Oxford comma clearly signifies that the first "and" in the sentence completes the list. When one encounters the second "and" one is already given a hint that the last item in the group is a plural item (Mr. and Mrs. Howell). Without the Oxford comma, one must read the sentence to the end and then parse out how things are grouped. The Oxford comma improves readability and therefore it is wrong to exclude it.

Also, if you moved Mr. and Mrs. Howell to earlier in the sentence all hell breaks loose without the Oxford comma.

The regular characters on Gilligan's Island were: Gilligan, the Skipper, the Professor, Mr. and Mrs Howell, Mary Anne and Ginger.

As I read that, I have to wonder if Mary Anne and Ginger are a couple. The Oxford comma would clearly show that both of them are on the market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea (Post 10697821)

Mmmmm not really. The "being assholes" part that is.

Yes, really. There's nothing wrong with the use of two spaces. This isn't a rule, it's an aesthetic choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 10697824)

Yes, to people who like to know where sentences end, that second space is a blessing, as it reinforces the punctuation mark ending the sentence. To people who read like shit anyway, and do it basically just to get through what they're reading, comprehension be damned, it doesn't matter as much.

I think you sort of have it backwards.

Modern books never, ever use the extra space. So people who are used to reading are accustomed to not having that extra space.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 10697838)

I think you sort of have it backwards.

Modern books never, ever use the extra space. So people who are used to reading are accustomed to not having that extra space.

I don't have it backwards. That's why the second space was put in there in the first place, when they were using typewriters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 10697836)

Yes, really. There's nothing wrong with the use of two spaces.

There is nothing wrong with getting up and walking over to your TV to change the channel either. Both are vestiges of outdated technology.

The Oxford Comma

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 10697794)

There's actually not a clear winner on this, its pretty split down the middle right now. It is punctuation's version of the Betamax vs VCR war.

I disagree. The Oxford comma is there for clarity and accuracy.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/06/18/gy2aga8u.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox (Post 10697840)

There is nothing wrong with getting up and walking over to your TV to change the channel either. Both are vestiges of outdated technology.

You're welcome to prefer single space. You're being an asshole when you claim that it's wrong to use a double space, because it's not wrong and you know it's not wrong, since it's just a preference, and not a rule.

That's the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 10697839)

I don't have it backwards. That's why the second space was put in there in the first place, when they were using typewriters.

You do have it backwards. You said, in your words, the extra space is needed unless you "read like shit"

But books never use the extra space. To me it seems like its helpful only if you "read like shit"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 10697839)

I don't have it backwards. That's why the second space was put in there in the first place, when they were using typewriters.

There were not 2 spaces before typewriters, because proportional fonts used in standard printing did not require them. Two spaces were used when there were only mono-spaced type on typewriters. Unless you are using Courier font, the second space no longer helps readability and in fact impairs it.

Picture says a thousand words:

Hope this helps.

Here's an image of a sample of even typewriter spacing versus optical:
http://www.westminster.edu/staff/nak/courses/spaces.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fried Meat Ball! (Post 10697842)

I disagree. The Oxford comma is there for clarity and accuracy.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/06/18/gy2aga8u.jpg

Hmm. I would think if the strippers were JFK and Stalin, there would be a semi-colon after strippers. But I struggle with the correct use of semi-colons.

I like this thread.