Why the serial (Oxford) comma is important

[DonQuixote]

I do, but I click on them as I can -
Sometimes I get a surprise, so I try to be discreet.

 

[MTLDude]

There is the classic example to show the importance of good punctuation

The principal said: "your teacher is an ass*".

or

The principal, said your teacher, is an ass.

* as in donkey, of course...

 

[DonQuixote]

Punctuation is a marvelous thing.

 

[belamyi]

A much more accurate parody than mine...but he's been on my Ignore list for quite a while.

It's a totally crappy attempt... at a parody or whatever, but what could be expected from Lilat.

 

[Críostóir]

Wow, I know the difference between comma and and. But I didn't know a sentence without a proper comma will resulting a totally crappy meaning!^^

It certainly can, though the circumstances are limited. It happens when the third-to-last item in a list is plural, and the last two are items that conceivably could be examples of that item. Hence "my parents, Ayn Rand and God" is confusing, but "Alice, Betty and Carol" is not. Neither is "the pebbles, leaves and bottle caps."

The trouble isn't that the Oxford comma is always needed; it's that some English teachers forbid it. They would say you should write "JFK, Stalin and the strippers" to fix that sentence. This doesn't work when the order is significant, as it is in the dedication, where the author was mostly dedicating the book to his parents, and after them to Rand, and thirdly to God. Reordering is not an option in a case like that.

 

[Críostóir]

Thanks for the correction Críostóir ^^

I have no embarrassment, inhibition, [STRIKE]and[/STRIKE] or awkwardness.

There! I put it in a sentence.

FTFY. No 'and's with negatives. Non-existence requires 'or' (or even 'nor', though that would be a little old-fashioned in this context.

 

[spooger]

tldr


Rephrase in interest of spatial relation... the placement of the names after the title of ex-wives denotes identification of said ex-wives.

And I prefer serial periods...

that would be the ellipsis ...

and i prefer cereal ... period!

 

[Críostóir]

Críostóir, I still don't get it why did you changed my and with or just because it sounds negative?

Nevertheless, you're a sexy teacher

LMAO

Hmm. You can only conjoin ("and") things together if they exist. Saying "there is no" denies their existence, so you can't "and" them.

Actually you can, but it means something different. If I say "I do not have apples, grapes, and pears" it means I could have apples and grapes but not pears, or something. And it's a pretty odd thing to say; it's just not the way normal English is spoken.

Is that clearer?

And thanks.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think anyone who says a certain mode of punctuation should never be used is an ass -- an unmitigated ass.

Punctuation exists to assist in the conveyance of meaning, which is, after all, the purpose of writing. Commas, therefore, may be used in any position in the sentence which serves to aid the reader in following the meaning, regardless of whether some silly, or obscure, rule says one belongs there or not.

And the usage has clearly changed over time. When my grandmother was in school, the preceding sentence would have been written, "And the usage has clearly changed, over time". The comma seems redundant or unnecessary to us today, but then it was considered correct. An example from farther back is the much-punctuated Second Amendment:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That seems incredibly clumsy, and the commas serve more to confuse than to enlighten. Today, we'd only use one of those:

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Another example is the use of the comma with conversation. I once read an old book that didn't use them, e.g.:

Tom said "I am going to the store".

as opposed to today's usage:

Tom said, "I am going to the store".


For those who forbid the Oxford comma, I have to ask: Why the comma before a quote? doesn't the quote itself serve to set off the clause? After all, if we're after efficiency, by reducing the occurrence of punctuation, that looks like a good target to me!

 

[belamyi]

LMAO

Hmm. You can only conjoin ("and") things together if they exist. Saying "there is no" denies their existence, so you can't "and" them.

Actually you can, but it means something different. If I say "I do not have apples, grapes, and pears" it means I could have apples and grapes but not pears, or something. And it's a pretty odd thing to say; it's just not the way normal English is spoken.

Is that clearer?

And thanks.

But wouldn't there be a case in which you would write: "There is/I have no embarrassment, inhibition and awkwardness anymore", because you need to express that you used to have those feelings, but now they are gone, they don't exist anymore?

 

[Kulindahr]

But wouldn't there be a case in which you would write: "There is/I have no embarrassment, inhibition and awkwardness anymore", because you need to express that you used to have those feelings, but now they are gone, they don't exist anymore?

I think the "and" there makes of them a set, suggesting that you don't have all those things together, but you might have them separately.

 

[belamyi]

I think the "and" there makes of them a set, suggesting that you don't have all those things together, but you might have them separately.

It says that you used to have them together, but now you don't anymore. It doesn't necessarily imply that you still can have them separately. The fact that they are abstract may lead to that confusion, but I think that is more related to what are usually called "semantical" interpretations than to the actual logic of syntax.
If you say "My house, my garden and my dog don't exist anymore" you are not implying that they exist separately, are you?
Cris wrote above that there is no case in which you can't use an "and" to join items that don't exist. But his example of grapes and pears is something I don't understand.

About the Second Amendment punctutation cited above, it reflects the classical praxis that we still find in the KJ Bible, after the punctutation rest of the classical texts has been modernized, and I think that praxis may be related to a particular perception of the syntax of the text and how it would be delivered in speech: our modern punctutation is tied to the logic of syntax, subordinates, relative clauses and all that because our modern society, as a rule, reads in silence, in private, but in older times the pause of a comma was tied to the practice of texts as something social, something to be spoken or recited to an audience. That's why you can find a comma between a subject and its predicate, simply because the length of the subject fills up a different breathing period (clause), or (something related to breathing too) because there is an inflexion to mark. Old punctuation would reflect more the inflections of speech than of logic and sense.

 

[Kulindahr]

It says that you used to have them together, but now you don't anymore. It doesn't necessarily imply that you still can have them separately. The fact that they are abstract may lead to that confusion, but I think that is more related to what are usually called "semantical" interpretations than to the actual logic of syntax.
If you say "My house, my garden and my dog don't exist anymore" you are not implying that they exist separately, are you?
Cris wrote above that there is no case in which you can't use an "and" to join items that don't exist.

That's a different grammatical structure -- and I'm too tired to explain it. If you said, "I don't have my house, my garden ___ my dog any more", though, the proper conjunction would be "or".

Crio?

 

[belamyi]

That's a different grammatical structure -- and I'm too tired to explain it. If you said, "I don't have my house, my garden ___ my dog any more", though, the proper conjunction would be "or".

Crio?

Yes, it is a different structure, but you can use it to express the same idea, and maybe it's the preference of usage that marks the difference in our choice of one or another, and not actually so much the logic and the ability of the structures themselves to be used to express the ideas.
But since I didn't get the "apples, grapes and pears" example above (Crio's, Cris for close friends , I may be missing something there too, even if it's more a nuance than a whole change of sense.

 

[ashonfire]

This is easily the sexiest thread I have ever read on JUB.

 

[belamyi]

It doesn't necessarily imply that you have it separately, but it allows that possibility. The "or" knocks out that possibility completely, which is why it's preferred.

That's right, but then it also introduces another nuance, since "or" implies alternatives, not the inclusion that you find in "and" , so you are covering a hole just to uncover another one, and it all ultimately rests more on the rather arbitrary choices of common usage than in the strict logic of the syntax employed. And the common understanding and semantics of usage would lead you to realize that the possibility that had been considered allowed, in this particular case, is a rather silly one, so that we would have run a course of thought only to end up at the starting point.
However, and for obvious reasons, in this discussion I can admit there are points I may be missing... or not. So I'm waiting for Cris' or anybody else's enlightened and definitive explanation.

 

[Kulindahr]

Just to muddy the waters, this is perfectly legit:

I don't have peas, I don't have corn, and I don't have beans.

Now, if arithmetic rules applied,

I don't have peas, corn, and beans would also be legit.

 

[belamyi]

Just to muddy the waters, this is perfectly legit:

I don't have peas, I don't have corn, and I don't have beans.

Now, if arithmetic rules applied,

I don't have peas, corn, and beans would also be legit.

You mean you don't have peas, corn, and it would also be legit not to have any beans? Depending on a previous statement, you would mean you exclude peas and corn, but something else would be legit, and so would be beans. Is that right?

 

[Kulindahr]

Okay, smarty pants, I wasn't awake enough to remember...

<uh-oh>

proper punctuation.

 

[belamyi]

Okay, smarty pants, I wasn't awake enough to remember...

<uh-oh>

proper punctuation.

Oops: I wasn't aware I was being taught by a dozy teacher