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)

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Unless you are using Courier font, the second space no longer helps readability and in fact impairs it.

Awesome!

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by eDave

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.

Yep, that would be entirely incorrect.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

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

I'd say it's the new rule based on both logic, sense and aesthetics.
I know you're in printing right?

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by alnorth

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"

You should probably be reading posts for comprehension in this thread, given the two current topics. I did not write what you are claiming I wrote.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by eDave

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.

Try this: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I'd say it's the new rule based on both logic, sense and aesthetics.
I know your in printing right?

You can say what you want. You'll be wrong, since it's not a rule and is just a preference, but you can say it. Oh, and if we're doing the rules thing, it's "you're", not "your".

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

AP sez no comma. I must abide by AP. AP is wisdom. AP is life. AP is God.

I am also true to AP, but I refuse to give up the Oxford comma since clarity and accuracy are paramount. I also set up my company's style guide, and we went to website and email (one word, lower case) three years before AP.

[eDave]

Originally Posted by Fried Meat Ball!

Try this: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon

That explains it. Thanks dude.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

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.

That is what you wrote. You are saying the extra space helps when reading, and that it doesn't matter for people "who read like shit".

But thats entirely wrong. (don't get offended by the way, I wasn't the one who decided to insult the other's preference. You really did not have to go there)

1) books never use the extra space after 1950 or so. That is a stone-cold fact.

2) The people who are best at reading probably read books more than people who "read like shit"

3) The best readers are therefore accustomed to single space, so the extra space does nothing for them.

So, the extra space either serves no purpose whatsoever, or perhaps it helps people who "read like shit". I pointed this out only because it was amusing to me that the insult you were using, if it applied to anyone at all, probably applied more to people who for whatever reason like the extra space.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You can say what you want. You'll be wrong, since it's not a rule and is just a preference, but you can say it.

If you don't want to use it, that's fine with me. But it is the new rule and is taught as one. It's how typographers always set type. We are all setting type now--just digitally.

Oh, and if we're doing the rules thing, it's "you're", not "your".

Nope. I caught it--a typo. I went back and edited it.

Temper much?

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by alnorth

That is what you wrote. You are saying the extra space helps when reading, and that it doesn't matter for people "who read like shit".

But thats entirely wrong. (don't get offended by the way, I wasn't the one who decided to insult the other's preference. You really did not have to go there)

I know what I wrote. I wrote it. You don't seem to to comprehend what I wrote. That's where the issue is, here. You're jousting at a non-existent windmill.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You can say what you want. You'll be wrong, since it's not a rule and is just a preference, but you can say it. Oh, and if we're doing the rules thing, it's "you're", not "your".

No. It's wrong.

http://www.slate.com/articles/techno..._invaders.html

What galls me about two-spacers isn't just their numbers. It's their certainty that they're right. ... "Who says two spaces is wrong?" they wanted to know.

Typographers, that's who. The people who study and design the typewritten word decided long ago that we should use one space, not two, between sentences. That convention was not arrived at casually. James Felici, author of the The Complete Manual of Typography, points out that the early history of type is one of inconsistent spacing. Hundreds of years ago, some typesetters would end sentences with a double space, others would use a single space, and a few renegades would use three or four spaces. Inconsistency reigned in all facets of written communication; there were few conventions regarding spelling, punctuation, character design, and ways to add emphasis to type. But as typesetting became more widespread, its practitioners began to adopt best practices. Felici writes that typesetters in Europe began to settle on a single space around the early 20th century. America followed soon after.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Fried Meat Ball!

No. It's wrong.

http://www.slate.com/articles/techno..._invaders.html

Seriously, it's not wrong. There's no right or wrong here. It's a preference born of necessity, from the typewriter era. What the typographers would have been more accurate in saying is that there is no longer a need, in their opinion, for the second space.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I know what I wrote. I wrote it. You don't seem to to comprehend what I wrote. That's where the issue is, here. You're jousting at a non-existent windmill.

You can't just fold your arms and say "thats not what I said, you can't read", when your post looks very clear to me.

Don't be an ass about it, either point out precisely where I'm wrong, or move on.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by alnorth

That is what you wrote. You are saying the extra space helps when reading, and that it doesn't matter for people "who read like shit".

But thats entirely wrong. (don't get offended by the way, I wasn't the one who decided to insult the other's preference. You really did not have to go there)

1) books never use the extra space after 1950 or so. That is a stone-cold fact.

2) The people who are best at reading probably read books more than people who "read like shit"

3) The best readers are therefore accustomed to single space, so the extra space does nothing for them.

So, the extra space either serves no purpose whatsoever, or perhaps it helps people who "read like shit". I pointed this out only because it was amusing to me that the insult you were using, if it applied to anyone at all, probably applied more to people who for whatever reason like the extra space.

You are totally correct. Surprised you know this.

Readability is defined as the ability to grasp words quickly with ease.

It has nothing to do do with literacy or legibility regarding the topic of typography. Legibility is being able to determine what the characters are--busy backgrounds, water damage on a page, poor handwriting impair this.

When characters are spaced out too wide, as they are on a typewriter, one tends to grasp characters or words more individually. This slows down recognition. When closer and optically spaced a person can grasp a group of words more rapidly. Hence, readability is about speed. How type is set can aid or impair this.

Sure if one doesn't know what the words mean, they may go slower too but with all things being equal, proper spacing facilitates readability.

Also, applies to how wide a column of type one uses as too much length tires out the reader.