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:
Now,
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?
.
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:
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).
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).
.