• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Oxford (Serial) Comma

Skwim

Veteran Member
.

This was brought to mind by its mention in a thread about Trump and his claim that our Moon is a part of Mars.

From Wikipedia:

"In English language punctuation, a serial comma is a comma . . . placed immediately before the coordinating conjunction (usually and or or) in a series of three or more terms. For example, a list of three countries might be punctuated either as "France, Italy, and Spain" (with the serial comma), or as "France, Italy and Spain" (without the serial comma)​

Now,

Opinions among writers and editors differ on whether to use the serial comma, and usage also differs somewhat between regional varieties of English. Generally (with few exceptions), British English does not make use of this comma, while on the other hand it is common and even mandatory in American English​

Arguments for and against

Common arguments for consistent use of the serial comma:

1. Use of the comma is consistent with conventional practice.
2. It matches the spoken cadence of sentences better.
3. It can resolve ambiguity (see examples below).
4. Its use is consistent with other means of separating items in a list (for example, when semicolons are used to separate items, a semicolon is consistently included before the last item even when and or or is present).
5. Its omission can suggest a stronger connection between the last two items in a series than actually exists.
6. Its use can "prevent any misreading that the last item is part of the preceding one".

Common arguments against consistent use of the serial comma:

1. Use of the comma is inconsistent with conventional practice.
2. The comma may introduce ambiguity (example below)
3. Where space is at a premium, the comma adds unnecessary bulk to the text.

Example:
In some circumstances using the serial comma can create ambiguity. If the book dedication above [To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.] is changed to

To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God

the serial comma after Ayn Rand creates ambiguity about the writer's mother because it uses punctuation identical to that used for an appositive phrase, leaving it unclear whether this is a list of three entities (1, my mother; 2, Ayn Rand; and 3, God) or of only two entities (1, my mother, who is Ayn Rand; and 2, God).​

So, what do think? Do the arguments against the consistent use of the serial comma hold any weight? Does Britain have a case for leaving it out?


.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
.

This was brought to mind by its mention in a thread about Trump and his claim that our Moon is a part of Mars.

From Wikipedia:

"In English language punctuation, a serial comma is a comma . . . placed immediately before the coordinating conjunction (usually and or or) in a series of three or more terms. For example, a list of three countries might be punctuated either as "France, Italy, and Spain" (with the serial comma), or as "France, Italy and Spain" (without the serial comma)​

Now,

Opinions among writers and editors differ on whether to use the serial comma, and usage also differs somewhat between regional varieties of English. Generally (with few exceptions), British English does not make use of this comma, while on the other hand it is common and even mandatory in American English
Arguments for and against

Common arguments for consistent use of the serial comma:

1. Use of the comma is consistent with conventional practice.
2. It matches the spoken cadence of sentences better.
3. It can resolve ambiguity (see examples below).
4. Its use is consistent with other means of separating items in a list (for example, when semicolons are used to separate items, a semicolon is consistently included before the last item even when and or or is present).
5. Its omission can suggest a stronger connection between the last two items in a series than actually exists.
6. Its use can "prevent any misreading that the last item is part of the preceding one".

Common arguments against consistent use of the serial comma:

1. Use of the comma is inconsistent with conventional practice.
2. The comma may introduce ambiguity (example below)
3. Where space is at a premium, the comma adds unnecessary bulk to the text.

Example:
In some circumstances using the serial comma can create ambiguity. If the book dedication above [To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.] is changed to

To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God

the serial comma after Ayn Rand creates ambiguity about the writer's mother because it uses punctuation identical to that used for an appositive phrase, leaving it unclear whether this is a list of three entities (1, my mother; 2, Ayn Rand; and 3, God) or of only two entities (1, my mother, who is Ayn Rand; and 2, God).​
So, what do think? Do the arguments against the consistent use of the serial comma hold any weight? Does Britain have a case for leaving it out?


.
Poetry those idiots. I totally agree with what ever you decide.
6.png
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
So, what do think? Do the arguments against the consistent use of the serial comma hold any weight?

I refuse to be a member of either religion but pick and choose as seems appropriate which of course will annoy true believers.

To be more precise, where it matters, I use it or not use it as clarity demands. When it does not matter, I tend not to use it but not as a rule.

Let us remember:

lets-eat-grandma-lets-eat-grandma-punctuation-saves-lives-6859377.png
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
So, what do think? Do the arguments against the consistent use of the serial comma hold any weight?
I was taught if you ever have any doubts about clarity, be safe and use it. It's not always necessary, but sometimes one little mark can make the world of difference between being understood and confusion. Such as the memes about loving to eat granny, your kids, and your pets and inviting the hookers JFK and Stalin.
As for English, it very much depends on which style guide, with a handful of publications opting not to use them. IIRC, the Chicago guide errs towards the side of clarity rather than a hard yes or no. In today's era of online publishing and self-publishing, we may end up losing it altogether with it becoming strictly a regional thing, because between* that, text speaks, and advertising the standards are going down.
*This being a thread about grammar I felt an obligation to mark I know this would normally be among, not between, but with these being non-physical objects I'm not sure and I don't have a style guide on hand.
 
Last edited:

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
I was taught to use the serial comma in elementary school. I used it in school, after school, and even here on the forum. :p

I’m with FH. Not using it just makes a sentence look disorganized. For me, an in-line list should have a punctuated pause after each item.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
.

This was brought to mind by its mention in a thread about Trump and his claim that our Moon is a part of Mars.

From Wikipedia:

"In English language punctuation, a serial comma is a comma . . . placed immediately before the coordinating conjunction (usually and or or) in a series of three or more terms. For example, a list of three countries might be punctuated either as "France, Italy, and Spain" (with the serial comma), or as "France, Italy and Spain" (without the serial comma)​

Now,

Opinions among writers and editors differ on whether to use the serial comma, and usage also differs somewhat between regional varieties of English. Generally (with few exceptions), British English does not make use of this comma, while on the other hand it is common and even mandatory in American English
Arguments for and against

Common arguments for consistent use of the serial comma:

1. Use of the comma is consistent with conventional practice.
2. It matches the spoken cadence of sentences better.
3. It can resolve ambiguity (see examples below).
4. Its use is consistent with other means of separating items in a list (for example, when semicolons are used to separate items, a semicolon is consistently included before the last item even when and or or is present).
5. Its omission can suggest a stronger connection between the last two items in a series than actually exists.
6. Its use can "prevent any misreading that the last item is part of the preceding one".

Common arguments against consistent use of the serial comma:

1. Use of the comma is inconsistent with conventional practice.
2. The comma may introduce ambiguity (example below)
3. Where space is at a premium, the comma adds unnecessary bulk to the text.

Example:
In some circumstances using the serial comma can create ambiguity. If the book dedication above [To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.] is changed to

To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God

the serial comma after Ayn Rand creates ambiguity about the writer's mother because it uses punctuation identical to that used for an appositive phrase, leaving it unclear whether this is a list of three entities (1, my mother; 2, Ayn Rand; and 3, God) or of only two entities (1, my mother, who is Ayn Rand; and 2, God).​
So, what do think? Do the arguments against the consistent use of the serial comma hold any weight? Does Britain have a case for leaving it out?


.
I don't use it, but have no problem with those that do.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
.

This was brought to mind by its mention in a thread about Trump and his claim that our Moon is a part of Mars.

From Wikipedia:

"In English language punctuation, a serial comma is a comma . . . placed immediately before the coordinating conjunction (usually and or or) in a series of three or more terms. For example, a list of three countries might be punctuated either as "France, Italy, and Spain" (with the serial comma), or as "France, Italy and Spain" (without the serial comma)​

Now,

Opinions among writers and editors differ on whether to use the serial comma, and usage also differs somewhat between regional varieties of English. Generally (with few exceptions), British English does not make use of this comma, while on the other hand it is common and even mandatory in American English
Arguments for and against

Common arguments for consistent use of the serial comma:

1. Use of the comma is consistent with conventional practice.
2. It matches the spoken cadence of sentences better.
3. It can resolve ambiguity (see examples below).
4. Its use is consistent with other means of separating items in a list (for example, when semicolons are used to separate items, a semicolon is consistently included before the last item even when and or or is present).
5. Its omission can suggest a stronger connection between the last two items in a series than actually exists.
6. Its use can "prevent any misreading that the last item is part of the preceding one".

Common arguments against consistent use of the serial comma:

1. Use of the comma is inconsistent with conventional practice.
2. The comma may introduce ambiguity (example below)
3. Where space is at a premium, the comma adds unnecessary bulk to the text.

Example:
In some circumstances using the serial comma can create ambiguity. If the book dedication above [To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.] is changed to

To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God

the serial comma after Ayn Rand creates ambiguity about the writer's mother because it uses punctuation identical to that used for an appositive phrase, leaving it unclear whether this is a list of three entities (1, my mother; 2, Ayn Rand; and 3, God) or of only two entities (1, my mother, who is Ayn Rand; and 2, God).​
So, what do think? Do the arguments against the consistent use of the serial comma hold any weight? Does Britain have a case for leaving it out?


.
Once upon a time I was a co-editor with a different view than the other co-editor. I'd take the commas out and she'd put them right back in. Eventually I gave up as she simply didn't understand the 'optional' comma, 'optional' being the term I was taught.

I'm in Canada and we get both British and American influence on spelling, vocabulary, etc. With my own editing and while instructing students in writing, my emphasis was always on fluency, or flow. Does that comma hinder flow, or does it help? Does it make things sound slower, or does it speed things up? Does it serve any purpose at all. Generally I opted for not using them. Here on RF, it's different, as writers often throw in a comma as they are thinking what to write. Then they have to go back and ecit them out. Comma overuse is a serious problem for learning writers.

In the editing process it's wise to read it both ways and then decide. If I'm editing my own work I often get rid of about half the commas.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Once upon a time I was a co-editor with a different view than the other co-editor. I'd take the commas out and she'd put them right back in. Eventually I gave up as she simply didn't understand the 'optional' comma, 'optional' being the term I was taught.

I'm in Canada and we get both British and American influence on spelling, vocabulary, etc. With my own editing and while instructing students in writing, my emphasis was always on fluency, or flow. Does that comma hinder flow, or does it help? Does it make things sound slower, or does it speed things up? Does it serve any purpose at all. Generally I opted for not using them. Here on RF, it's different, as writers often throw in a comma as they are thinking what to write. Then they have to go back and ecit them out. Comma overuse is a serious problem for learning writers.

In the editing process it's wise to read it both ways and then decide. If I'm editing my own work I often get rid of about half the commas.
I agree that the over use of commas is a common mistake, one I'm sometimes guilty of; however, in the case of punctuating a sentence with a coordinating conjunction in a series of three or more terms. the Oxford comma relieves me of having to stop and try figuring out what the author has in mind. If a publication that doesn't use the Oxford comma says, "The show will feature the following bands; The Artful Dead, Sally, MegaMega and Flush. I can't be certain MegaMega is a separate band from Flush, or MegaMeg and Flush is a single band, "MegaMega and Flush." Is there going to be three bands or four? However, knowing that a publication always uses an Oxford comma I can be sure that the absence of the Oxford comma is telling me that MegaMega and Flush is a single band.

.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I agree that the over use of commas is a common mistake, one I'm sometimes guilty of; however, in the case of punctuating a sentence with a coordinating conjunction in a series of three or more terms. the Oxford comma relieves me of having to stop and try figuring out what the author has in mind. If a publication that doesn't use the Oxford comma says, "The show will feature the following bands; The Artful Dead, Sally, MegaMega and Flush. I can't be certain MegaMega is a separate band from Flush, or MegaMeg and Flush is a single band, "MegaMega and Flush." Is there going to be three bands or four? However, knowing that a publication always uses an Oxford comma I can be sure that the absence of the Oxford comma is telling me that MegaMega and Flush is a single band.

.

In that particular situation, any writer worth a penny would use common sense. Personally, in that specific situation I am a comma user.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
.
In some circumstances using the serial comma can create ambiguity. If the book dedication above [To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.] is changed to

To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God

the serial comma after Ayn Rand creates ambiguity about the writer's mother because it uses punctuation identical to that used for an appositive phrase, leaving it unclear whether this is a list of three entities (1, my mother; 2, Ayn Rand; and 3, God) or of only two entities (1, my mother, who is Ayn Rand; and 2, God).​
So, what do think?
.
I see grammatical (not real world) ambiguity in your non-serial
comma example, but not the serial comma one.

My advice...
Where there is potential ambiguity, change the construction to clarify.
 
Top