The Oxford Comma
What an abomination.
The Oxford comma, so-called because the Oxford University Press style guidelines require it, is the comma before the conjunction at the end of a list. If your preferred style is to omit the second comma in “red, white, and blue,” you are aligned with the anti-Oxford comma faction.
The pro-Oxford comma faction is more vocal and numerous in the US, while in the UK, anti-Oxford comma reigns. (Oxford University is an outsider, style-wise, in its own land.) In the US, book and magazine publishers are generally pro, while newspapers are anti, but both styles can be found in both media.
This is a perfect example of one thing being correct and serving well for so long, for logical reasons but then someone who hasn’t a clue comes in and attempts to set up an alternative which is just plain grammatically wrong.
Along come pundits and identify two equal and opposite sides of a “debate’ when there is no debate at all. The false side, calling themselves pro-Oxford Comma are taken as a legitimate force, which they clearly are not – they are purveyors of something false.
For the record, the “and” between the penultimate and last item in a list replaces the comma. To have both is not only tautology but it looks ugly. Yes I know the Americans do it but one has to humour them – something went wrong in their past and they lost the ability to spell correctly and punctuate sentences properly part of the time.
A comma separates items in a list and is used for a pause. It is not a separator of main ideas or thoughts – the semi-colon, fullstop [period] or conjunction are for that. Let’s not get into relative pronouns here. The “and” and “but” are conjunctions. That means they join two separate ideas but are also used for lists.
In the separation of main ideas or thoughts, as they make the following idea either additional or contrary [see "or" as well], then logically, they cannot start a sentence in themselves. I know I do it for writing effect but am conscious that I’m breaking the rule every time. A conjunction cannot start a sentence, otherwise it is no longer a conjunction.
………..
Chuckles observes:
For those not unduly concerned about an Oxford Comma:
Filed under: Diversions, History & Culture, Society & human issues
Oxford was full of “Grammarian pedants” 400 years ago
some things never change
so is it as clear as ‘black and white’?
or perhaps ‘black, and white’?
Some things are still offensive to the trained eye, JD.
James Higham recently posted…The Oxford Comma
Oxford University press want this? Hopefully not Cambridge. Never trust the latin quarter of Cowley
It’s got nothing to do with “grammar”, the Oxford comma is a good habit because it removes ambiguity. Thus: The firms involved were Bloggs and Smith and Nephew. Wos mean? But all is clear if you write The firms involved were Bloggs, and Smith and Nephew; or, indeed, The firms involved were Bloggs and Smith, and Nephew.
It’s a pretty good rule-of-thumb that punctuation should mimic the rhythm of speech, as it does in my second example; well, the speech of a person of taste, discrimination and good sense, anyway.
“Yes I know the Americans do it but one has to humour them – something went wrong in their past and they lost the ability to spell correctly and punctuate sentences properly part of the time.”
Thank you so much. I fret excessively when attenpting to write!
Not to mention typos.
It’s got nothing to do with “grammar”, the Oxford comma is a good habit because it removes ambiguity. Thus: The firms involved were Bloggs and Smith and Nephew. Wos mean? But all is clear if you write The firms involved were Bloggs, and Smith and Nephew; or, indeed, The firms involved were Bloggs and Smith, and Nephew.
Eh? Wotta loadof …. er hem [coughs politely] … yes, Dearieme, everyone to his own.
Mad Piper – w-e-e-e-l-l-l-l, I hadn’t insulted the Americans in donkey’s years and I thought, about time I did. You’ve had it too easy too long.
James Higham recently posted…The Oxford Comma
Well, now, at last, I know, finally, what it is to like, about Oxford.
The Founding generation sprinkled commas on paper like salt on beef. It appears to have been an affectation of some sort. Hamilton was the hands down champion.
And he was a monarchist.
James Higham recently posted…The Bolshoi and the reality of life
Many years ago I worked for a very fine chap who had a PhD from a University in Baltimore. He was an Australian. Our job was to build a psychologist-driven consulting firm, under his excellent leadership and I was his first ‘recruit’ of a cohort that eventually grew to twelve. ( I was new at this game and saw him as my Mentor as well as Boss). We worked well together and he established, right from the start, a ‘peer review’ system for the large industry-oriented reports we produced.
I would write a lengthy report on a matter for a client and he would review it before ‘sending out’, and I would review his. Generally only minor additions or changes were needed. But it irked me that every report of mine had his punctuation changes added, which I duly removed. I broached the matter one day going through a report with him discussing the changes he wanted and why they were not correct. I pointed out that he was using an American style of punctuation. His ‘answer’ was clear: “I have a PhD”. Mine was equally clear: “I am English”.
(Not the best of defences, to be sure, especially in the light of this discussion on Oxford Commas, but a winner)