Yet another go-around on the Oxford comma. Sigh.
October 12, 2022 5:18 PM Subscribe
I'm almost hesitant to wade in on this issue because many people, including me, feel so strongly about it. But while I can come up with numerous examples where the Oxford comma provides much-needed clarification, and a few examples where it really doesn't matter, I can't conceive of an example where the Oxford comma actually confuses matters. Can you? Or shall I remain forever a steadfast proponent of the Oxford comma, regardless of what the style guides say?
This is perhaps not as precise a situation as you are looking for, but I find that Oxford commas read more slowly, they're a little bump to stumble over, and when not needed for clarity's sake their absence makes for a smoother rhythm.
posted by spindle at 5:35 PM on October 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by spindle at 5:35 PM on October 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
Yes, when you're mixing singular proper nouns and singular common nouns. From this article: "The individuals at the party were the restaurant owner, the bartender, Mr. Jones and Ms. Doe."
I too resent the tyranny of the oxford comma.
posted by kaefer at 5:40 PM on October 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
I too resent the tyranny of the oxford comma.
posted by kaefer at 5:40 PM on October 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
You can always reorder lists, though. "The individuals at the party were Mr. Jones, Ms. Doe, the restaurant owner, and the bartender."
posted by Clustercuss at 5:47 PM on October 12, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by Clustercuss at 5:47 PM on October 12, 2022 [8 favorites]
That's still ambiguous, though. Ms. Doe could be the restaurant owner.
posted by flod at 5:52 PM on October 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by flod at 5:52 PM on October 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
We invited the stripper, JFK, and Stalin.
The author claims that this sentence indicates JFK could be the stripper. This is incorrect. To mean that, the sentence would have to read, "We invited the stripper JFK and Stalin." The author needs to study comma usage for restrictive and nonrestrictive appositives.
posted by FencingGal at 6:04 PM on October 12, 2022 [21 favorites]
The author claims that this sentence indicates JFK could be the stripper. This is incorrect. To mean that, the sentence would have to read, "We invited the stripper JFK and Stalin." The author needs to study comma usage for restrictive and nonrestrictive appositives.
posted by FencingGal at 6:04 PM on October 12, 2022 [21 favorites]
You can always reorder lists, though
Often but definitely not always. A list could be something you're quoting, or include an implied or explicit order. Changing would alter the accuracy of the report or the meaning of the sentence.
Regardless, the point of punctuation is to make writing clear to the reader. Applying a rule about punctuation that forces a rewrite is letting the tail wag the dog. (This can also apply to situations that do not use the Oxford comma; I personally am happily agnostic on when it belongs.)
posted by mark k at 6:04 PM on October 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
Often but definitely not always. A list could be something you're quoting, or include an implied or explicit order. Changing would alter the accuracy of the report or the meaning of the sentence.
Regardless, the point of punctuation is to make writing clear to the reader. Applying a rule about punctuation that forces a rewrite is letting the tail wag the dog. (This can also apply to situations that do not use the Oxford comma; I personally am happily agnostic on when it belongs.)
posted by mark k at 6:04 PM on October 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
I had always wondered the same thing, and just recently saw something suggesting that it was a newspaper style to save the one character of space for the comma. I can’t remember where I saw it, and I don’t know enough about typesetting to know if that would be a plausible motivation.
posted by LizardBreath at 6:34 PM on October 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by LizardBreath at 6:34 PM on October 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
Yes, when you're mixing singular proper nouns and singular common nouns. From this article: "The individuals at the party were the restaurant owner, the bartender, Mr. Jones and Ms. Doe."
But why on Earth would anyone write that as a simple comma-separated list to begin with? That's just ASKING for confusion. For example, I'm not 100% sure I'm understanding who's who. Is Mr. Jones the bartender? Or are Mr. Jones and Ms. Doe the restaurant owner and the bartender, respectively? It seems like just about any other available option would be clearer - parentheses, em dashes, a combination of semicolons and commas, changing the order (i.e. "Mr. Jones the bartender and Ms. Doe the restaurant owner" or "The restaurant owner, Mr. Jones the bartender, and Ms. Doe"), etc. Or are they four separate people? If so, the Oxford comma would still make it plainer.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 7:08 PM on October 12, 2022 [11 favorites]
But why on Earth would anyone write that as a simple comma-separated list to begin with? That's just ASKING for confusion. For example, I'm not 100% sure I'm understanding who's who. Is Mr. Jones the bartender? Or are Mr. Jones and Ms. Doe the restaurant owner and the bartender, respectively? It seems like just about any other available option would be clearer - parentheses, em dashes, a combination of semicolons and commas, changing the order (i.e. "Mr. Jones the bartender and Ms. Doe the restaurant owner" or "The restaurant owner, Mr. Jones the bartender, and Ms. Doe"), etc. Or are they four separate people? If so, the Oxford comma would still make it plainer.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 7:08 PM on October 12, 2022 [11 favorites]
The author claims that this sentence indicates JFK could be the stripper. This is incorrect. To mean that, the sentence would have to read, "We invited the stripper JFK and Stalin."
This is right, BUT "We invited Stalin, the stripper, and JFK"* would be mildly ambiguous in a way a non-serial-comma situation would not invite. However, you would solve the problem by rearranging the elements, not by throwing away a perfectly good comma.
*(or "JFK, the stripper, and Stalin" but that feels less correct to me because the elements should go in length order and Stalin has the fewest syllables)
posted by babelfish at 7:31 PM on October 12, 2022
This is right, BUT "We invited Stalin, the stripper, and JFK"* would be mildly ambiguous in a way a non-serial-comma situation would not invite. However, you would solve the problem by rearranging the elements, not by throwing away a perfectly good comma.
*(or "JFK, the stripper, and Stalin" but that feels less correct to me because the elements should go in length order and Stalin has the fewest syllables)
posted by babelfish at 7:31 PM on October 12, 2022
For example, in the sentence, “The individuals at the party were the restaurant owner, the bartender, Mr. Jones and Ms. Doe,” with an Oxford comma, one could infer that Mr. Jones is the bartender.
Okay, let's try it:
“The individuals at the party were the restaurant owner, the bartender, Mr. Jones, and Ms. Doe.”
But in a world where we know many people do use the Oxford comma, it would be silly to assume that Mr. Jones is the bartender, because for all you know, the writer is a believer in the Oxford comma and has indeed crafted a serial list with no appositives.
Also, it's just poor writing to present this list this way if in fact Jones was the bartender. I'd write this as, “The individuals at the party were the restaurant owner, Mr. Jones (the bartender), and Ms. Doe" or “The individuals at the party were the restaurant owner; the bartender, Mr. Jones; and Ms. Doe.” Or "The bartender, Mr. Jones, attended the party, as did the restaurant owner and Ms. Doe." Or any one of a number of other ways.
But really, I wouldn't randomly include appositives in a string like this, and I also probably wouldn't mix in vague descriptors ("the restaurant owner") with proper names ("Mr. Jones"). I'd either use everyone's given names, or their titles, or both—not an arbitrary mix of the two.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 8:24 PM on October 12, 2022 [11 favorites]
Okay, let's try it:
“The individuals at the party were the restaurant owner, the bartender, Mr. Jones, and Ms. Doe.”
But in a world where we know many people do use the Oxford comma, it would be silly to assume that Mr. Jones is the bartender, because for all you know, the writer is a believer in the Oxford comma and has indeed crafted a serial list with no appositives.
Also, it's just poor writing to present this list this way if in fact Jones was the bartender. I'd write this as, “The individuals at the party were the restaurant owner, Mr. Jones (the bartender), and Ms. Doe" or “The individuals at the party were the restaurant owner; the bartender, Mr. Jones; and Ms. Doe.” Or "The bartender, Mr. Jones, attended the party, as did the restaurant owner and Ms. Doe." Or any one of a number of other ways.
But really, I wouldn't randomly include appositives in a string like this, and I also probably wouldn't mix in vague descriptors ("the restaurant owner") with proper names ("Mr. Jones"). I'd either use everyone's given names, or their titles, or both—not an arbitrary mix of the two.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 8:24 PM on October 12, 2022 [11 favorites]
Can I? No, I can not. I will die on the Oxford Comma hill with you.
posted by hworth at 9:26 PM on October 12, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by hworth at 9:26 PM on October 12, 2022 [7 favorites]
just recently saw something suggesting that it was a newspaper style to save the one character of space for the comma
Definitely a trivia i picked up in my journalism class, so maybe it's true. Certainly paper constraints are paramount.
posted by cendawanita at 9:42 PM on October 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
Definitely a trivia i picked up in my journalism class, so maybe it's true. Certainly paper constraints are paramount.
posted by cendawanita at 9:42 PM on October 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
My thought was always that not requiring it empowrrs the writer and editor. Use it if needed for clarity and otherwise, don’t. I find it strange that this is somehow controversial among modern bookish people. I have also worked in two content industries that use lots of lists of names and places and other proper nouns and the less punctuation (and unnecessary capitalization), the better it all reads.
posted by vunder at 10:38 PM on October 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by vunder at 10:38 PM on October 12, 2022 [2 favorites]
The Wikipedia article contains a good discussion with several examples.
“On the honor roll this semester are Amanda, my best friend, and someone I don’t know.”
Is Amanda my best friend? Or are Amanda and my best friend two separate honorees? The Oxford comma creates this ambiguity (at the same time as it resolves others).
I use and like the Oxford comma, but a lot of the comments in this thread smack of post hoc rationalization. The Oxford comma creates some ambiguities and resolves others. Whether you are an Oxford comma user or not, ambiguities can always be resolved by rephrasing the sentence, but this is not an argument in favor of or against the Oxford comma. There are some good reasons to use the Oxford comma, but ambiguity isn’t one of them.
posted by Syllepsis at 10:48 PM on October 12, 2022 [7 favorites]
The author needs to study comma usage for restrictive and nonrestrictive appositives.Nonrestrictive appositives exist. You can quibble about whether “the stripper, JFK” should be one or the other, but you can construct examples of the Oxford comma introducing ambiguity from any nonrestrictive appositive you like. For example, I can construct one from the example of a nonrestrictive appositive in the article you link:
“On the honor roll this semester are Amanda, my best friend, and someone I don’t know.”
Is Amanda my best friend? Or are Amanda and my best friend two separate honorees? The Oxford comma creates this ambiguity (at the same time as it resolves others).
I use and like the Oxford comma, but a lot of the comments in this thread smack of post hoc rationalization. The Oxford comma creates some ambiguities and resolves others. Whether you are an Oxford comma user or not, ambiguities can always be resolved by rephrasing the sentence, but this is not an argument in favor of or against the Oxford comma. There are some good reasons to use the Oxford comma, but ambiguity isn’t one of them.
posted by Syllepsis at 10:48 PM on October 12, 2022 [7 favorites]
“On the honor roll this semester are Amanda, my best friend, and someone I don’t know.”
Is Amanda my best friend? Or are Amanda and my best friend two separate honorees? The Oxford comma creates this ambiguity (at the same time as it resolves others).
The comma is not what’s causing the ambiguity in that sentence.
If you leave the final comma out, you get “On the honor roll this semester are Amanda, my best friend and someone I don’t know,” which makes it sound like the writer doesn’t know their best friend Amanda. That is not making the sentence less ambiguous.
If Ananda is the writer’s best friend, the two unambiguous ways to write the sentence would be, “On the honor roll this semester are my best friend Amanda, and someone I don’t know,” or “On the honor roll this semester are Amanda, who is my best friend, and someone I don’t know.”
The sentence as written makes it quite clear that Amanda, the best friend, and the person the writer doesn’t know are three different people. If that’s not what the writer wishes to convey, they would use one of the options above.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 12:18 AM on October 13, 2022 [8 favorites]
Is Amanda my best friend? Or are Amanda and my best friend two separate honorees? The Oxford comma creates this ambiguity (at the same time as it resolves others).
The comma is not what’s causing the ambiguity in that sentence.
If you leave the final comma out, you get “On the honor roll this semester are Amanda, my best friend and someone I don’t know,” which makes it sound like the writer doesn’t know their best friend Amanda. That is not making the sentence less ambiguous.
If Ananda is the writer’s best friend, the two unambiguous ways to write the sentence would be, “On the honor roll this semester are my best friend Amanda, and someone I don’t know,” or “On the honor roll this semester are Amanda, who is my best friend, and someone I don’t know.”
The sentence as written makes it quite clear that Amanda, the best friend, and the person the writer doesn’t know are three different people. If that’s not what the writer wishes to convey, they would use one of the options above.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 12:18 AM on October 13, 2022 [8 favorites]
I spend my working hours adding serial commas to British copy and I have plenty of commas to spare if anyone needs some.
Here's an example from in the wild where the serial comma could have improved the clarity of the sentence.
posted by Orkney Vole at 1:55 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
Here's an example from in the wild where the serial comma could have improved the clarity of the sentence.
posted by Orkney Vole at 1:55 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
“On the honor roll this semester are Amanda, my best friend, and someone I don’t know.”
Is Amanda my best friend? Or are Amanda and my best friend two separate honorees? The Oxford comma creates this ambiguity (at the same time as it resolves others)
The writer is the one creating the ambiguity, not the oxford comma. The writer is misusing their tools.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:50 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
Is Amanda my best friend? Or are Amanda and my best friend two separate honorees? The Oxford comma creates this ambiguity (at the same time as it resolves others)
The writer is the one creating the ambiguity, not the oxford comma. The writer is misusing their tools.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:50 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
Is there any reason why you need to have a firm policy one way or the other? I tend to think that if the Oxford University Press and the Chicago Manual of Style disagree about a point of usage, it’s probably fine either way.
If you’re having arguments with editors (or you’re the editor), and you need to argue your case, then fair enough. But both usages are entirely valid in formal written English.
Personally I think consistency is an overrated virtue for this kind of thing, and just use whichever seems right when I type a sentence.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 4:59 AM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
If you’re having arguments with editors (or you’re the editor), and you need to argue your case, then fair enough. But both usages are entirely valid in formal written English.
Personally I think consistency is an overrated virtue for this kind of thing, and just use whichever seems right when I type a sentence.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 4:59 AM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
“On the honor roll this semester are Amanda, my best friend, and someone I don’t know.”
Is Amanda my best friend? Or are Amanda and my best friend two separate honorees? The Oxford comma creates this ambiguity (at the same time as it resolves others).
To add one more angle to the skepticism already expressed by others: since the presence or lack of an Oxford comma (obviously) only comes into play between the last two items in a list, you're stuck with this ambiguity regardless of your comma rules if these items show up in this order anywhere earlier in a longer list, no?
Sure looks like the problem's baked into the word choice, not the presence or lack of the final comma.
posted by nobody at 5:09 AM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
Is Amanda my best friend? Or are Amanda and my best friend two separate honorees? The Oxford comma creates this ambiguity (at the same time as it resolves others).
To add one more angle to the skepticism already expressed by others: since the presence or lack of an Oxford comma (obviously) only comes into play between the last two items in a list, you're stuck with this ambiguity regardless of your comma rules if these items show up in this order anywhere earlier in a longer list, no?
Sure looks like the problem's baked into the word choice, not the presence or lack of the final comma.
posted by nobody at 5:09 AM on October 13, 2022 [1 favorite]
Yeah# why bother courtesy of readers doing making their experience easier with standardization% I think I@ll just punctuation whatever suits use my sentence structure fancy and they::"ll figure it out~ the
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:51 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:51 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
I'm an editor. I've worked for four different academic publishers (including OUP, which is a total dumpster fire, in case anyone was wondering). The thing about style guides is that they're just guides! Every publisher I've worked for has technically followed Chicago, but anytime Chicago said something they didn't agree with, they'd be like, "nah, house style is [x]." The Oxford comma was one of those things in all cases, fwiw.
On top of that, every individual book/project typically has its own style guide, which usually has at least a few entries that deviate from both Chicago AND house style. You can't go totally off the rails and, I dunno, cancel all punctuation or whatever, but there's a TON of leeway within certain parameters, and lots of reasons why you might want to break from a style guide on a particular point.
If this is a professional question, I think you just pick a side and stick with it. If this is a personal question, do whatever makes you happy! Style guides exist to provide consistency in formal publications, not to dictate the One True Moral and Correct Way to Do Grammar (which does not exist).
P. S. I am generally Team Oxford Comma, and agree with the many people above discussing how examples of commas supposedly making things more confusing are actually just poorly written sentences.
posted by catoclock at 9:25 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
On top of that, every individual book/project typically has its own style guide, which usually has at least a few entries that deviate from both Chicago AND house style. You can't go totally off the rails and, I dunno, cancel all punctuation or whatever, but there's a TON of leeway within certain parameters, and lots of reasons why you might want to break from a style guide on a particular point.
If this is a professional question, I think you just pick a side and stick with it. If this is a personal question, do whatever makes you happy! Style guides exist to provide consistency in formal publications, not to dictate the One True Moral and Correct Way to Do Grammar (which does not exist).
P. S. I am generally Team Oxford Comma, and agree with the many people above discussing how examples of commas supposedly making things more confusing are actually just poorly written sentences.
posted by catoclock at 9:25 AM on October 13, 2022 [3 favorites]
Actually, an update to this: I just checked and Chicago DOES recommend using the Oxford comma. I always assumed they didn't because it was explicitly listed in so many house style guides I've seen over the years. Funny.
AP style doesn't recommend it, but newspapers are weird.
posted by catoclock at 10:03 AM on October 13, 2022
AP style doesn't recommend it, but newspapers are weird.
posted by catoclock at 10:03 AM on October 13, 2022
Team no comma unless it really can't be avoided even after rewriting. House style where I work—as well as everywhere else that I've worked, come to think of it—avoids the serial comma. Clarity is the writer's job, not the punctuation's job.
posted by emelenjr at 1:12 PM on October 13, 2022
posted by emelenjr at 1:12 PM on October 13, 2022
Just jumping in to clarify, if necessary, that the Oxford comma is a comma between the final two items in a series.
Some people regard it as unnecessary--those people may choose not to put a comma between the final two items in a series.
Some of the above answers seem to be discussing commas in general. Sorry if the lack of understanding is on my part.
posted by JimN2TAW at 2:17 PM on October 13, 2022
Some people regard it as unnecessary--those people may choose not to put a comma between the final two items in a series.
Some of the above answers seem to be discussing commas in general. Sorry if the lack of understanding is on my part.
posted by JimN2TAW at 2:17 PM on October 13, 2022
Yeah, I’m an academic and the answer is always to follow house style. My personal preferences do not matter when pitted against journal house style, and this is why I will keep paying the nice copy editors to fix my style and references. (Just as long as they don’t change my US English to UK English - that was a bridge too far.)
posted by ec2y at 1:43 PM on October 22, 2022
posted by ec2y at 1:43 PM on October 22, 2022
This thread is closed to new comments.
We invited the stripper, JFK, and Stalin.
posted by RobinofFrocksley at 5:34 PM on October 12, 2022 [5 favorites]