The Oxford Comma
Halfway through Lynne Truss' delightful Eats Shoots & Leaves, I was distressed to discover that she abhors the "Oxford", or "serial", comma. Simply put, it's the comma separating the last item in a list from the rest of a list — or, rather, should be the last comma, unless one objects to its use for reasons beyond my comprehension.
Here's an example of its use:
He liked hamburgers and onions, sausages and mustard and hot dogs and cheese.
He liked hamburgers and onions, sausages and mustard, and hot dogs and cheese.
The addition of an Oxford comma (OC) in the second version is the difference between the two statements.
Yes, I'm pushing my way out of the grammar closet, this time as a strong proponent of the Oxford comma.
Ms. Truss makes the usual [wrong-headed!] arguments that the OC is not usually necessary, that it sort of clutters up things, and that it can always be put in when needed to remove ambiguity. To me, that's a pretty weak argument.
I prefer these reasons for the OC: 1) that it never obscures meaning; 2) that it always makes it easier to scan and detect the elements of the list; 3) that it makes sense rhythmically and as a pause reflected in spoken english; 4) that it irritates the writer to sit and decide each time whether it's absolutely necessary; and 5) the reader will be happy to see its consistent use in each instance of a list.
Agreed: this is a typically gross over reaction to something that's not nearly so important in the greater scheme of things as, say, impeaching a president who lies about reasons for waging wars. However, it is something in my life that I can control and about which I can feel I've finally come to a conclusion with nearly absolute certainty of its correctness, which is occasionally a fine thing. (Particularly when it's about something that doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things, since moral certainty about anything truly important is generally quite a nuisance.)
3 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Saturday, 15 January 2005 at 10.58
Permalink
You're absolutely right. The Oxford comma is necessary and proper for distinguishing groupings in complex sentences.
on Saturday, 22 August 2009 at 18.15
Permalink
The serial comma can cause ambiguity: They wanted Betty, the woman who ate the pie, and me
When the Oxford comma is mandatory, the phrase ‘The woman who ate the pie’ can either be the second of three people, or an appositive that further identifies who Betty is. If you take the last comma away, there is no ambiguity – ‘the woman…’ represents the second of three people.
on Sunday, 23 August 2009 at 22.34
Permalink
It's an amusing example, Darryl, but, if you'll forgive my saying so, rather contrived. My preference would be to retain the serial comma and simply rewrite the rare ambiguity: "They wanted Betty–she who ate the pie!–and me…." Fortunately, there are several ways to delimit parenthetical expressions. "They wanted Betty (the woman who ate the pie) and me…." I don't even mind something that many would consider egregious: "They wanted me and Betty, the woman who ate the pie,…."