Oxford Commas

[Custard Cream]

36 minutes ago, daveb said:

Not in the book I read, so I'm going to ignore that.  

It's perfectly possible that he was teasing me of course...

[everywhere and nowhere]

I don't. In Polish no comma before "and" is standard.

However, what irritates me is how a lot of people don't even know how to use commas. They use them like , this, or like,this, or sometimes like ,this... And for me it's so obvious and so simple to learn (no space-mark-space for all marks except brackets, quotation marks and dashes) that I can't imagine people being unable to remember it. And I hate using sloppy language on the web, I see no reason to, for example, not write full sentences on the web if I speak and even think in full sentences.

[MerePeasant]

I can't pretend to be the best ever at grammar, but here's my thoughts:

 

Sometimes a comma before 'and' works, and sometimes it really is not necessary. (Additional note: I was never taught to add the comma before the and.)

 

I don't believe the comma is necessary when you're listing things. The 'and' is already there for a reason to make a distinction between the words. You shouldn't need a comma to see that the two items/people are separate things. Hope that makes sense.

 

However, as said earlier, sometimes it can work in sentences to give an extra pause more than the 'and' itself does, if you can imagine yourself saying the sentence. Just not so much in the listing examples.  

 

 

[The Terrible Travis]

oxford commas are very good

[matt_lock]

The way I see it, there are 3 options:

1) not having a comma: "We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin".

This is ambiguous, as it's unclear whether JFK and Stalin are strippers, or other people who are strippers were invited.

2) having an oxford comma "We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin".

Note that this doesn't work if JFK and Stalin are the strippers. This is arguably ungrammatical.

3) Making it unambiguous without requiring a comma:

a) "we invited JFK, Stalin and the strippers"

b)  "we invited JFK and Stalin, who are strippers"

 

Option 1 should not be used, unless it's done deliberately for humour value.

 

Option 2 is acceptable in my opinion, although other people would disagree. Option 3 is clear, unambiguous and grammatically correct.

If possible, the ambiguity should be fixed by transforming it into an option 3 sentence. If however the restructure is unwieldy, looks bad, unpoetic (and you're writing poetry), you don't have time to restructure the sentence, or just want to frustrate grammar pedants, go with option 2.

[Guest]

Down with all forms of punctuation! Down with grammatically appropriate oppression! I will no longer be society's slave! Viva the no punctuation group, AntiPunc! 

[Back to Avalon]

And yet you punctuated, @ByeYall!.

[Guest]

Its a sickness inculcated since birth so its no wonder that even the leader of the resistance needs reeducation on occasion 

[Goonie]

when it's more professional writing I tend to use the oxford comma

[iff]

this poll really had an effect on me. Not only am I using them more but I am also really noticing them in books

 

@Kimchi Peanut

 

This poll is being locked and moved to the read only Census archive for it's respective year. As part of ongoing Census organisation, and in an attempt to keep the demographics of the polls current with the active user base at the time, the polls will last for one year from now on. However, members are allowed and even encouraged to restart new polls similar to the archived ones if they like them.

  

iff, Census Forum Moderator