The Oxford Comma

[alnorth]

Saw this on 538, and figured I'd poll the board on this highly controversial subject. Hopefully this isn't too off-topic here on Food Planet. (Why hasn't the lounge been renamed to that yet, by the way?)

The Oxford comma is the last comma before the "and" in a list of 3 or more things. For example, which one of these looks correct to you:

Denver, Oakland, and San Diego can all go to hell. (oxford comma)

Denver, Oakland and San Diego can all go to hell. (no oxford comma)

[Chief Roundup]

We are in the "Food Lounge" of Chiefs Planet.

[BucEyedPea]

Well, it's a lounge. People eat, drink and snack in a lounge too. Plus, talk about it.

[keg in kc]

I never use it.

[lcarus]

I've had a more intelligent discussion today about the use of Oxford commas and semicolons than any discussion I've had with my dipshit co-workers in the past month. Yeah...I need a new place to work.

[duncan_idaho]

I'm anti-Oxford comma in almost all cases.

I understand some people find the serial comma to be necessary because of confusion with sequences if you do not use it, but ambiguity can also exist from using the serial comma (as it can make the item before the conjunction look like it modifies the item preceding it in the list).

Personally, when I have the red pen of hatred (what my writers and editors used to call my editing pen) out, I prefer to avoid sequencing and commas (Oxford or otherwise) all together. I believe re-wording the sentence, is the most consistent and concise way to eliminate ambiguity.

Examples:

"To my editors, Patrick Rothfuss and Jim Butcher." (Ambiguous - are Rothfuss and Butcher my editors?)

"To my editor, Patrick Rothfuss, and Jim Butcher." (in this case, it is ambiguous because the first item in the sequence is singular, which could mean I'm dedicating the book to Patrick Rothfuss, who is my editor, or to my editor and Patrick Rothfuss, who are two separate people)

"To my editors and Patrick Rothfuss and Jim Butcher." (This is my preferred, comma-free method for handling sequences, but it doesn't work well if you're listing more than three items.)

It's my opinion that whatever benefit you gain in clarification of meaning is lost in the increased choppiness of the reading pattern. Commas cause pauses, and that often makes it harder to read.

It's funny... I'm very new age when it comes to comma and semi-colon use, but there are some old school things that still push my buttons. These include:

• Collective nouns being referred to as "they" (Team is an IT)
• Saying a team won a game "over" another team (you win "against' an opponent, not "over" an undetermined space)
• Saying your concerns are centered "on" something (for something to be centered, it must be "around" another something, not on top of it)

[alnorth]

yep, I knew there were examples of the serial comma also leading to confusion, which is why I don't like to use that argument, though the Stalin and JFK strippers are funny.

To me, the easiest and most compelling argument is that commas denote a pause, and this is how a series is spoken. The Oxford comma or lack of one could lead to confusion in various cases, but in all cases, we all pause before the "and", and thats why I believe it should be correct. I strongly believe the AP is wrong, and almost all the other American style guides are right.

[Reaper16]

If you need a comma to suggest a pause then your prose isn't up to snuff. Your sentences ought to have a rhythm to them that will naturally overrule any possible "interruption" from an Oxford comma.

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

If you need a comma to suggest a pause then your prose isn't up to snuff. Your sentences ought to have a rhythm to them that will naturally overrule any possible "interruption" from an Oxford comma.

My sentences have more rhythm than Bobby ****ing Brown, so I suggest you strike that comment from the record.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

If you need a comma to suggest a pause then your prose isn't up to snuff. Your sentences ought to have a rhythm to them that will naturally overrule any possible "interruption" from an Oxford comma.

Agreed.

I always found the JFK and Stalin example unconvincing, personally. Since I would never write it as:

"We invited the strippers, John F. Kennedy and Josef Stalin."

I would instead write it as:

"We invited John F. Kennedy, Josef Stalin and three strippers."

I was taught that if you're introducing items in a sequence and some have a proper name, they should always be listed first. Any nouns standing in for a group of people (in this case, strippers) should come at the end of the sequence.

it reduces confusion about the relationship of the proper nouns to the group noun.

[BucEyedPea]

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Agreed.

I always found the JFK and Stalin example unconvincing, personally. Since I would never write it as:

"We invited the strippers, John F. Kennedy and Josef Stalin."

I would instead write it as:

"We invited John F. Kennedy, Josef Stalin and three strippers."

I was taught that if you're introducing items in a sequence and some have a proper name, they should always be listed first. Any nouns standing in for a group of people (in this case, strippers) should come at the end of the sequence.

it reduces confusion about the relationship of the proper nouns to the group noun.

That's pretty much what I do as well. If something is confusing, I think about structuring the sentence differently rather than comma placement.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That's not an example of a serial comma.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

That's not an example of a serial comma.

Yes I know. It's just an example of a comma--and confusion.

[blaise]

I think Elements of Style says yes. I do, but really my grammar is terrible. That's why I started writing plays instead of trying short stories. I can get away with more in dialogue.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by lcarus

That's pretty much what I do as well. If something is confusing, I think about structuring the sentence differently rather than comma placement.

The problem, however, is that not everyone knows when it's confusing (or cares to look). The Oxford comma saves lives.