# The Case for the Oxford (Serial) Comma



## Sam (Nov 1, 2013)

It was probably drilled (or beaten) into you in school: the rule that you should _never _have a comma before 'and'. For years, teachers carped on about the Oxford comma and how it was superfluous and gratuitous, a wasted piece of punctuation whose only purpose was to take up space on the page. Now, many are converting to it as quickly as they possibly can. Look at the following sentences and you'll see why: 

_I dedicate this book to my parents, Ayn Rand and God._ (Must be some awesome conversations at that dinner table!)

_We invited the strippers, Hitler and Stalin. _(Didn't see that titbit in the history books.)

_Highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector. _(I knew Mandela was old, but crikey!)

_She took a photograph of her parents, the President and Vice-President. _(Yet more awesome dinner-table conversations.)

_They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid and a cook. _(Betty must be handy in a pinch.)

_________________________________

I swear by the Oxford comma (mildly ironic since Oxford University doesn't use it) because it removes ambiguity in sentences. I still get a few people who say to me, "Why do you use a comma after 'and' in your novels? That's incorrect," because they've been told for years that the Oxford comma is erroneous and unnecessary. I always refer them to strippers Hitler and Stalin.


----------



## Bilston Blue (Nov 1, 2013)

I don't get it, Sam, how people, not uneducated people, can argue against its necessity. Clarity and precision are essential. Perhaps their arguing against it is a result of an ingrained academic stubbornness and an over-sized superiority complex. Who'd have thought that, eh?


----------



## tabasco5 (Nov 1, 2013)

I prefer the comma before and.


----------



## Nickleby (Nov 5, 2013)

The local paper doesn't use it. The only reason I can imagine is that it saves on ink.

The risk of ambiguity far outweighs any possible reason for leaving out that comma.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 5, 2013)

I don't recall any such restriction being taught on this side of the pond. Pretty sure they taught us _to _use it.


----------



## ppsage (Nov 5, 2013)

> _I dedicate this book to my mother, Ayn Rand, and God. _


 Glad to meet you, son of Rand. The second comma can sometimes be mistaken for marking an appositive.

The interpretations derived in the op should all have been more correctly punctuated by a colon or a dash. There are certainly times when the serial comma is useful but in the vast majority of ordinary cases it adds nothing. In my schooling, it was required.


----------



## popsprocket (Nov 5, 2013)

I use it all the time. It wasn't particularly drilled into us at school, more it was something I discovered on my own and found out that it was considered incorrect. But I hate reading through a list of things without the Oxford comma. It makes me feel dirty even when it's not all that ambiguous as to what is happening.

This ran me into a few problems in uni, but most professors only assigned about 5 points (of 100) to the actual writing of a paper and I rarely lost any for the few bonus commas around the place.


----------



## Sam (Nov 6, 2013)

Funny, I've never had a problem with it in any essay for uni. My grammar and punctuation have always been graded as 'excellent'.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 9, 2013)

Having worked and studied in both America and England...Yeah the bias against the Oxford comma is mostly a British English quirk. As your examples show, it is entirely useful. I think most of the confusion comes from people using it erroneously - i.e in a regular conjunction: "At the sight of the bird he picked up a rock, and violently hurled it at the creature."


----------



## popsprocket (Nov 14, 2013)

Sam said:


> Funny, I've never had a problem with it in any essay for uni. My grammar and punctuation have always been graded as 'excellent'.



I had some over-zealous professors. Imagine that, over-zealous professors who teach _business_. Ridiculous. I could have writing run circles around any of them and I got picked up on my Oxford commas :|


----------



## Sam (Nov 14, 2013)

popsprocket said:


> I had some over-zealous professors. Imagine that, over-zealous professors who teach _business_. Ridiculous. I could have writing run circles around any of them and I got picked up on my Oxford commas :|



Oh, I've certainly had over-zealous professors. I argued with one in a class for ten minutes because he insisted that 'leftenant' was an actual world. This was an _English _professor, mind you, who for some strange reason wasn't aware that 'lieu' is a French word pronounced 'lef', and since the English like borrowing from every language in the world, 'lieutenant' in England (and other countries) is pronounced _lef_tenant. The word is still spelt the same.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Nov 17, 2013)

I always teach my students the oxford comma, and in their critical essays, I require its usage. Clarity and precision are a must, especially in academic writing.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Nov 17, 2013)

I was thinking about this recently. I've always found this debate ridiculous because what if you're listing couples?

"Could the following couples please come up to the stage: Sean and Gus, J.D. and Turk and Troy and Abed."
It just looks silly. That's three "ands" in a row with no break. It looks like a run-on sentence, or that the speaker has schizophrenic epilepsy.


----------



## Darkhorse (Jan 5, 2014)

Here, in Australia, I was taught not to use the Oxford Comma. But, I wonder whether this was down to the preference of a particular teacher or whether this is a widespread view. I imagine it is the latter due to our British heritage.

Anyhow, I have since been convinced of the benefits of using the Oxford Comma.


----------



## Grim Grady (Apr 24, 2014)

I couldn't agree more, OP.  My mind returns again and again to something I read in an insurance claim.

"My engine caught on fire, so I took my dog from the back seat and smothered it with a blanket."


----------



## W.Goepner (May 28, 2014)

luckyscars said:


> Having worked and studied in both America and England...Yeah the bias against the Oxford comma is mostly a British English quirk. As your examples show, it is entirely useful. I think most of the confusion comes from people using it erroneously - i.e in a regular conjunction: "At the sight of the bird he picked up a rock, and violently hurled it at the creature."



I will be truthful here, I did not know what the Oxford comma was, until I had come to the Writers Forum. Olly Buckle mentioned it to me as he critiqued my piece. Now I know one person is not make the whole, but after Olly told me of his background, I believe he has some knowledge of the subject.

When making a list, it is quite common tho use the Oxford comma before the 'and'. As in; 'this, that, and the other thing' or, 'I want you to pick up this, this, and this from the store.' When using it in the manner of luckyscars example it does not belong. Though many choose to use it in that manner.





Sam said:


> Oh, I've certainly had over-zealous professors. I argued with one in a  class for ten minutes because he insisted that 'leftenant' was an actual  world. This was an _English _professor, mind you, who for some  strange reason wasn't aware that 'lieu' is a French word pronounced  'lef', and since the English like borrowing from every language in the  world, 'lieutenant' in England (and other countries) is pronounced _lef_tenant. The word is still spelt the same.



Through my being in the ARMY, I new about the _lef_tenant bit.

I unfortunately have not advanced that far into the educational system. Lack of funds and time, kept me from advancing beyond the two year degree. My only disagreement with a professor, was in my business management class. My lowest mark. Though, when I signed up for my English 101 the instructor tossed me out of class and told me to take English 95 first, my spelling was... lets just say I barely squeezed into English 101 the next semester. 


Now, as everyone can see, my punctuation is dismal. Sentence structure, not far behind. Feel free to laugh.


----------



## aurora borealis (Dec 31, 2015)

I've always used the Oxford comma. I don't remember being taught its use; I just started using it myself in my own writing (creative & for school). To be entirely honest, I didn't even know what an Oxford comma was until my grandfather mentioned it one day and I Googled it in confusion. :chargrined:

Here's another reason to use the Oxford comma:


----------



## W.Goepner (Dec 31, 2015)

I am seeing the pattern again. Please tell me if I am making the sense of it as I think I am.

The Oxford comma, is necessary to continue or finish a list making the and part of the last piece. An example like Sam showed near the opening of this thread. 

The Ropers Jewelry store, hired Sam a new security guard, a sails clerk, and a diamond setter today. (Oxford comma)

The Ropers Jewelry store, hired Sam a new security guard, a sails clerk and a diamond setter today. (non Oxford comma, showing Sam to be multi talented)

Seeing the pictorial version above, also makes sense, but...


----------



## Phil Istine (Dec 31, 2015)

I always avoided it because it was drilled into me at school never to use it.  However, I have started using it in the last year or two.  I still avoid it unless it's needed for clarity.  This is more about habit than for any other reason.  In the event of unavoidable ambiguity, I write around it.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Dec 31, 2015)

W.Goepner said:


> I am seeing the pattern again. Please tell me if I am making the sense of it as I think I am.
> 
> The Oxford comma, is necessary to continue or finish a list making the and part of the last piece. An example like Sam showed near the opening of this thread.
> 
> ...



The Oxford comma is the least of your comma worries there.  Written properly, the sentence should be as follows:

_The Ropers Jewelry Store hired Sam, a new security guard, a sales clerk, and a diamond setter today._

Because of the sentence structure, it's unclear if Sam is the new security guard or not, and if those positions were hired for his benefit or in addition to his own hiring.  Put another way, I'm not sure if you left out the comma after Sam intentionally or not, and even if it was an accident, adding the comma still leaves the sentence ambiguous.  It would be better off written like so:

_The Ropers Jewelry Store hired a new security guard named Sam, a sales clerk, and a diamond setter today._

or

_The Ropers Jewelry Store hired a new security guard, a sales clerk, a diamond setter, and Sam today._


----------



## EmmaSohan (Dec 31, 2015)

> The first three presidents were Washington, Adams, and Jefferson.



When I read this, there is a pause between _Washington _and _Adams_, then the same length pause between _Adams _and _and Jefferson_. You could read everything with no pause -- but you are not going to read this with a pause between _Washington _and _Adams _and no pause between _Adams _and _and Jefferson_.

To me, that's a good reason to recommend the Oxford comma.


----------



## W.Goepner (Dec 31, 2015)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> The Oxford comma is the least of your comma worries there.  Written properly, the sentence should be as follows:
> 
> _The Ropers Jewelry Store hired Sam, a new security guard, a sales clerk, and a diamond setter today._
> 
> ...



Thank you. 

I wondered about my comma placement and how to identify Sam as the security guard. (in my example) I do have the problem of over punctuation in many cases, and not enough in others.

But I do understand the Oxford comma, I believe. Though as you stated, it is the least of my issues.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 11, 2016)

I don't typically use the Oxford comma, and I don't use the comma before a conjunction unless the clause following it is an independent clause. I think the Oxford comma is ugly, but it can be useful where there would be ambiguity but for its usage. I don't like using semicolons or dashes to do a comma's work in lists in the same way I don't like using a comma to do a semicolon's work. In other words, semicolons must always divide independent clauses or precede a conjunction, and commas must always divide dependent and independent clauses or precede a conjunction. And since I am explaining this, semicolons only precede conjunctions where the sentence would otherwise require three or more commas.

My idea is to be economical with my grammar rather than prescriptive.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 16, 2016)

Sam said:


> _I dedicate this book to my parents, Ayn Rand and God._ (Must be some awesome conversations at that dinner table!)
> 
> _We invited the strippers, Hitler and Stalin. _(Didn't see that titbit in the history books.)



Are those sentences potentially wanting for an OC? The meaning is so substantially different and there's a case for either depending on what you are saying. If, for example, your parents were Ayn Rand and God (and they may be; after all, magic realism is a "thing") then you'd miss out the comma. If you're just listing names, use a comma. And I'm pretty sure I have a memory of two strippers by those names. 

My understanding is that the Oxford comma is optional and stylistic. Grammarly says:

Please bring me a pencil, eraser, and notebook.

- versus -

Please bring me a pencil, eraser and notebook.

Both valid to my mind, the second suggests a sort of dependency or link between the items, whereas the first is more unrelated and random. Then again the comma might just basically be a bit of a ... pregnant pause.



EmmaSohan said:


> When I read this, there is a pause between _Washington _and _Adams_, then the same length pause between _Adams _and _and Jefferson_.



Likewise, on reading your post, there was a a pause between "Adams" and "and", and "and" and "and", and "and" and "Jefferson".

*Sorry* *Ducks for cover*


----------



## Sam (Jan 16, 2016)

Perhaps, but I never said that it wasn't optional. 

What I said was that it removes ambiguity, which I have proven it does. 

"I had toast, eggs and tea for my breakfast". 

Well, I'm not one to judge, but I wouldn't fancy eggs and tea.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 17, 2016)

To me, an oc shouldn't change the meaning, just the emphasis. Could be wrong though...


----------



## Mike C (Jan 17, 2016)

Sam said:


> Oh, I've certainly had over-zealous professors. I argued with one in a class for ten minutes because he insisted that 'leftenant' was an actual world. This was an _English _professor, mind you, who for some strange reason wasn't aware that 'lieu' is a French word pronounced 'lef', and since the English like borrowing from every language in the world, 'lieutenant' in England (and other countries) is pronounced _lef_tenant. The word is still spelt the same.



Not actually interested in the rest of the discussion - do what you want with your commas - but I just want to (belatedly) correct the above claptrap. Lieu is a french word (meaning 'in place of' - a lieutenant is one who goes in place of another, a deputy) but is NOT pronounced 'lef'. The American pronunciation is actually closer to the original word than in the UK, where we mispronounce it for reasons nobody knows, possibly a confusion around the letters u and v at some point.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 17, 2016)

Mike C said:


> Not actually interested in the rest of the discussion - do what you want with your commas - but I just want to (belatedly) correct the above claptrap. Lieu is a french word (meaning 'in place of' - a lieutenant is one who goes in place of another, a deputy) but is NOT pronounced 'lef'. The American pronunciation is actually closer to the original word than in the UK, where we mispronounce it for reasons nobody knows, possibly a confusion around the letters u and v at some point.



In lieu of a polite response...


----------



## Harper J. Cole (Jan 17, 2016)

Not sure which part of *Sam's* post you're taking issue with, *Mike*. The two of you seem to be in agreement.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 17, 2016)

Mmm... I love the computer because I am such a genius. *e-ech-ech-ahem* : 


> Pronunciation of _lieutenant_ is generally split between the forms
> 
> [SUP]i[/SUP]/lɛfˈtɛnənt/ _lef-*TEN*-ənt_ and
> 
> [SUP]i[/SUP]/luːˈtɛnənt/ _lew-*TEN*-ənt_, with the former generally associated with the armies of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries, and the latter generally associated with anyone from the United States.[SUP][1][/SUP] The early history of the pronunciation is unclear; Middle English spellings suggest that the /luː-/ and /lɛf-/ pronunciations may have existed even then.[SUP][2][/SUP] The rare Old French variant spelling _luef_ for Modern French _lieu_ ('place') supports the suggestion that a final [w] of the Old French word was in certain environments perceived as an [f].[SUP][2[/SUP]


 "Perceived as an f ", hmmm? Perceived by whom? Non-French people? Does that mean the f was silent, or used in place of some other u/w symbol variant that was also silent, the French being big on the usage of silent letters? Sort of like Ye...


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 17, 2016)

There is always a duality in punctuation, depending on its purpose. Originally most reading was done aloud, so the punctuation was there to help the reader make it sound right, then, when people started reading to themselves more, the grammarians stepped in and the emphasis shifts to the meaning. That was taken to the extreme by around 1900 when the Oxford University Press guide for compositors was recommending different size spacing for "it's", depending on whether it was an abbreviation or a possessive. I wonder if anyone said "He's used the wrong spacing on that 'it's' "?
Now there is a thing, single commas, double commas, question mark in or out? One can always debate.

My feeling is that the author does it the way they wish SO LONG AS THEY ARE INFORMED. I don't think ee cummings was simply ignorant. Consistency also helps in most cases

Mark Twain I feel had it right, as usual; when informed that the compositor was correcting his punctuation he telegraphed instructions that he should be taken out and shot, without being given time to pray.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 17, 2016)

Olly Buckle said:


> Now there is a thing, single commas, double commas, question mark in or out? One can always debate.



I've developed a ... a thing. I call it a penchant; others may say it's a bad habit, but basically I combine an exclamation and a comma in that order, to suggest a loud interjection in the middle of another sentence (itself often another loud interjection). You think that's mad, that I'm crazy? Well, fie!, and pah!, and other pseudogallicisms!, and behold the rise of the exclomma.


----------



## ppsage (Jan 18, 2016)

Kevin said:


> "Perceived as an f ", hmmm? Perceived by whom? Non-French people? Does that mean the f was silent, or used in place of some other u/w symbol variant that was also silent, the French being big on the usage of silent letters? Sort of like Ye....


It means that when a bunch of mush-mouth, barely-French-speaking Normans showed up in Anglo-Saxon territory and took everything over except there warn't enough of them to actually change the WHOLE language, nobody could understand what they were saying and some people took the snorted-out explosive fricative for an f instead of a w.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 18, 2016)

A misinterpreted reading (like how 'Amerigo' took over a whole continent, only 'f' limited to one group of islands)? And somehow (710 years later) their linguistic offspring corrected it? Perhaps it was the attitude of questioning the former authority. Speculation...


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 18, 2016)

> I dedicate this book to my parents, Ayn Rand and God. (Must be some awesome conversations at that dinner table!)
> 
> We invited the strippers, Hitler and Stalin. (Didn't see that titbit in the history books.)
> 
> ...



As I see it the semantic problem here is not so much in the punctuation as in the phrasing. After all how many readers will check elswhere in the text to see if you do or don't use an Oxford comma, and even then how will they know if you are consistent?

'I dedicate this book to God, Ayn Rand, and my parents.' Quite clear, and God always comes first anyway, surely.

'We invited Hitler, Stalin, and the strippers.' Almost the same difference, though I suppose without the comma the strippers might have been coming with Stalin, but you would have to be pretty obtuse to read it that way.

One can continue in the same vein, it is a variation of the advice I am always giving about 'putting things together that go together'. It is no good assuming that your readers understand punctuation, most only have a vague idea and even the 'authorities' vary, or lay down rules and then tell you 'There are, however, many exceptions.'
I put a comma each side of 'however' because that is how they did it in the prescriptive days of the nineteenth century. They used to give children passages to punctuate.

Every lady in this land
Hath twenty nails on each hand
Five and twenty on hands and feet
And this is true without deceit.

Every lady in this land
Hath twenty nails on each hand;
Five and twenty on hands and feet:
And this is true, without deceit.
or
Every lady in this land
Hath twenty nails; on each hand
Five; and twenty on hands and feet:
And this is true without deceit.

It is an amusing conciet to demonstrate the superiority of teachers, but it is a lot easier to say 'Everyone has twenty nails, five on each hand and foot'; and even without the comma it is pretty plain what is meant.


----------

