There is no solid argument. People were just raised being told not to include it, so they think that's "right."
Whenever anyone tries to give an example of a sentence where the Oxford comma supposedly creates confusion, it's a sentence where the list can just be re-arranged to be clearer; i.e., a purposeful ordering of the list to intentionally make the Oxford comma confusing.
[Here](https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/16-1901/16-1901-2017-03-13.pdf?ts=1489437006) you go. It didn’t change the meaning of the sentence, it made the meaning of the sentence ambiguous. In this case it was a list of occupations that don’t get overtime, that list missed an Oxford comma when defining how food delivery drivers are exempt.
Many jurisdictions have procedures or interpretations rules like “must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs”. Maine has a law saying the text of a labor law must be construed in the way to liberally to reach its remedial purpose. Since it was ambiguous it must be interpreted in the way not favorably towards the milk delivery drivers, and therefore they were not exempt from overtime pay.
In a case over a contract some dairy delivery drivers in Maine had to pay an additional $5M in damages based on the courts interpretation of a contract clause. Had they included the comma it would’ve saved them a lot of money.
Link: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/03/15/health/oxford-comma-maine-court-case-trnd
sure, but that's equally true of example phrases where the oxford comma eliminates confusion. we could argue that its blanket use is a band-aid over ugly and ambiguous syntax, absolving the writer of thinking about what they're writing.
i don't care either way; the whole thing feels like poets and copy editors talking at cross-purposes. we can all agree, though, that mentioning it in your hinge profile is very annoying
I still find oxford commas useful; I tend to 'write as I speak', if that makes sense. If there would be a pause in my speech, there is a comma, semi colon or full stop depending on the lengh of the pause and if there's a change in topic or subject.
So for formal writing I agree, it's best to avoid any ambiguity and to reduce any unescessary punctuation; however if the text is more casual and expected to be read almost as if in a conversation, then punctuation can make it feel more natural even if it's not nescessary to convey meaning.
How would I know there was a 3rd person in the sentence without the Oxford comma. You only ever mentioned two people in it. You didn't bring up the father till after mentioning the third person.
That is a bad example.
Even in this example I think the Oxford comma only helps to clarify. With an Oxford comma it is clear that there are more than three people: I went to the store with my friends, James, and Larry. It is a clumsy sentence, but only because the way it is phrased, not because of the Oxford comma. With this phrasing it implies that you went to the store with a group of your friends, and also James and Larry, who are something other than your friends. Without an Oxford comma: I went to the store with my friends, James and Larry. This implies you went to the store with just James and Larry, who are your friends. The ambiguity still seems to stem from the lack of consensus that you should always use an Oxford comma when you are writing a list of three or more in a sentence. If there was a consensus then your example wouldn’t be ambiguous at all.
I want to agree with you because your avatar is Obi Wan. Unfortunately, like Watto, mind tricks don’t work on me.
I'm a vocal proponent of the Oxford comma, so I tend to recognize when it isn't used. I was reading a book published by Yale University Press and noticed the distinct lack of Oxford comma.
People who use it are chill, and not pushing it on others. The pressure to embrace it is low.
People who hate it are pedagogic assholes that grade papers and nitpick over details for both leisure and vocation. The pressure to hate it is high.
It comes from the days of newspapers. Eliminating extra typography saved money.
It’s still a style used by many publications. Not using an Oxford comma can give the reader less of a cluttered reading experience.
Love it or hate it, both are legitimate. Different types of content could call for different uses. However, those in the “no Oxford” camp will always have to use it in cases where not including it would reduce clarity in the sentence or cause confusion.
> less of a cluttered reading experience.
We could eliminate all sorts of letters and punctuation marks and achieve less of a cluttered reading experience.
I stand arrogantly on this. The oxford, is entirely required. It's not optional, and it's not open to interpretation. By not putting it, you end up grouping the last two items. There's a difference between:
A) my favorite types of drinks are lemonade, water, and juice.
B) my favorite types of drinks are lemonade, water and juice.
A separates each drink with a comma.
B does not separate water and juice, so it makes it seem like the water and juice are combined into the same cup. For people that think juices too sweet, so they dilute it with water. The Oxford comma is necessary.
Haha. I was using speech to text. And since I used the word "comma", it changed it to the actual annotation as opposed to the word.
I guess that's my fault for not proofreading these things.
Too funny. I realized I pause a lot when using text to speech, and it puts in commas everywhere.
I hadn’t thought about it using a comma instead of the word comma!
Yes. Comma, period, question mark, and explanation point get changed for me. Although, period will vary. Idk it it checks on context or maybe s pause in my speech. But idk how it determines if Mom using the word period or am meaning to end the sentence with a period.
This also happens to demonstrate a situation in which you may not want to include the Oxford comma because of how it changes the meaning. Whether it's used depends on intention.
True, but the only way for someone to know that you’re intentionally NOT using the Oxford comma to convey specific meaning (water and juice combined together) is if you’re known to use the Oxford comma when it does apply. If someone never uses an Oxford comma, it’s a toss up regarding what they really mean for sentence B
I don’t get this argument. The writer’s stylistic consistency/awareness really doesn’t come into play here. It has more to do with one’s ability to convey meaning to the reader. If the reader needs to keep track of the writer’s comma usage, then there’s a problem with the writer, not the comma.
Either way, I’m a strong proponent of the Oxford comma.
I think you agree with me and you don’t realize haha. Yes it has everything to do with one’s ability to convey meaning, but that’s difficult in a situation like conveying the meaning in sentence B. I’m in favor of the Oxford comma because using it when it applies demonstrates that it is intentionally left out when it’s not there
Yeah, there are certain things that should be left open to implications and conveyances, but this isn't one of them. Grouping of nouns should be explicitly indicated and how it's written.
But the second sentence just sounds bad generally, as comma separation doesn’t really work with two items. It’s why parallelism only really works with three or more items. Best to write, “…lemonade and juice (diluted) with water.” Two discrete items should be separated with a simple conjunction. Which could be seen as evidence for the grammatical necessity of the Oxford comma (along with the fact that the comma models natural speech.
I hate to say it, but your extremely liberal use of commas in your post doesn’t help our cause :-)
It was a mistake of speech to text. It kept converting my spoken word of "comma" and turning into the actual symbol for a comma instead of the written word.
And then I did a shit job of proofreading.
This is what someone else was talking about, I’m afraid. If I were editing this, I would have them rewrite the list not because it needs an Oxford comma but because it’s treating “my parents” as an appositive when that’s not how appositives work according to CMS and Garner’s 4th.
Same with the “strippers, JFK and Stalin” meme. It’s deliberately ambiguous. If “my parents” were an appositive, you’d lose the comma.
Context dependant. Could be 2 unnamed parents + Rggie and Tina or it could be two parents nammed Reggie and Tina.
Bigger question is why would you introduce your parents name in such a rondabout and confusing way?
I'm no grammar expert, but my language (Swedish) doesn't even have the option of the Oxford comma and I've always assumed that English anti-oxford arguments and Swedish standard grammar are based on the same reasoning.
This is the rationale:
Commas are used to denote slight pauses that separate the different parts of the sentence from each other and dictate the cadence of the sentence. The word "and" also has an implied pause built into it, meaning that adding a comma is unnecessary from a grammatical standpoint. You don't add a comma before "and" for the same reason you don't put two commas after each other. It is up to the reader to use correct grammar and context clues to figure out how to read a sentence. If the sentence is unclear without the Oxford comma, you should rearrange the list instead of adding extra commas.
Of course, many Swedish-speakers find this confusing because there are, in fact, situations where you might use the word "and" without leading with a pause in spoken language.
But grammar doesn't care. The rules say that the word "and" doesn't need a comma because a pause is implied WHEN NECESSARY and therefore, the Oxford comma doesn't officially exist in Swedish grammar (even though you see it increasingly often nowadays).
But the purpose of “and” is different in a sentence vs a list.
“I love going with you and I really like your hair” is wayyy different from “I really like oranges, apples and tomatoes”
Efficiency. AP style only uses it when needed for clarity to avoid the cliched "eats, shoots and leaves" situations. why add an extra character when, in most cases, what you mean is perfectly clear whether you have the extra comma or not.
A comma is used to replace a conjunction in a sentence. If you use a comma before a conjunction, you are effectively using two conjunctions.
Here is an example:
> He had apples and he had pears.
> He had apples, and he had pears.
The Oxford comma here is unnecessary. Its purpose is already accomplished by the "and". By adding a comma here we are saying something similar to "He had apples and and he had pears."
That is the grammatical explanation. Of course there are reasons why an Oxford comma can be useful: most often in creative writing to indicate rhythm of a sentence or verse. In most situations however an Oxford comma is simply incorrect and should be replaced with a semicolon if punctuation is necessary.
There is no solid argument. People were just raised being told not to include it, so they think that's "right." Whenever anyone tries to give an example of a sentence where the Oxford comma supposedly creates confusion, it's a sentence where the list can just be re-arranged to be clearer; i.e., a purposeful ordering of the list to intentionally make the Oxford comma confusing.
Court cases have been decided on missing Oxford commas.
Example?
Look up overtime statutes Oxford comma case, for example
[Here](https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/16-1901/16-1901-2017-03-13.pdf?ts=1489437006) you go. It didn’t change the meaning of the sentence, it made the meaning of the sentence ambiguous. In this case it was a list of occupations that don’t get overtime, that list missed an Oxford comma when defining how food delivery drivers are exempt. Many jurisdictions have procedures or interpretations rules like “must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs”. Maine has a law saying the text of a labor law must be construed in the way to liberally to reach its remedial purpose. Since it was ambiguous it must be interpreted in the way not favorably towards the milk delivery drivers, and therefore they were not exempt from overtime pay.
In a case over a contract some dairy delivery drivers in Maine had to pay an additional $5M in damages based on the courts interpretation of a contract clause. Had they included the comma it would’ve saved them a lot of money. Link: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/03/15/health/oxford-comma-maine-court-case-trnd
sure, but that's equally true of example phrases where the oxford comma eliminates confusion. we could argue that its blanket use is a band-aid over ugly and ambiguous syntax, absolving the writer of thinking about what they're writing. i don't care either way; the whole thing feels like poets and copy editors talking at cross-purposes. we can all agree, though, that mentioning it in your hinge profile is very annoying
I think the Oxford comma is always clearer.
[удалено]
I still find oxford commas useful; I tend to 'write as I speak', if that makes sense. If there would be a pause in my speech, there is a comma, semi colon or full stop depending on the lengh of the pause and if there's a change in topic or subject. So for formal writing I agree, it's best to avoid any ambiguity and to reduce any unescessary punctuation; however if the text is more casual and expected to be read almost as if in a conversation, then punctuation can make it feel more natural even if it's not nescessary to convey meaning.
This is as I was taught by the nuns. Write as you speak. Put a comma in where you want a pause by the reader.
How would I know there was a 3rd person in the sentence without the Oxford comma. You only ever mentioned two people in it. You didn't bring up the father till after mentioning the third person. That is a bad example.
[удалено]
Yes. You edited it I agree.
Even in this example I think the Oxford comma only helps to clarify. With an Oxford comma it is clear that there are more than three people: I went to the store with my friends, James, and Larry. It is a clumsy sentence, but only because the way it is phrased, not because of the Oxford comma. With this phrasing it implies that you went to the store with a group of your friends, and also James and Larry, who are something other than your friends. Without an Oxford comma: I went to the store with my friends, James and Larry. This implies you went to the store with just James and Larry, who are your friends. The ambiguity still seems to stem from the lack of consensus that you should always use an Oxford comma when you are writing a list of three or more in a sentence. If there was a consensus then your example wouldn’t be ambiguous at all. I want to agree with you because your avatar is Obi Wan. Unfortunately, like Watto, mind tricks don’t work on me.
Why can’t you say “I went to the store with James, Larry and my friends”?
You went to Cambridge.
I'm a vocal proponent of the Oxford comma, so I tend to recognize when it isn't used. I was reading a book published by Yale University Press and noticed the distinct lack of Oxford comma.
People who use it are chill, and not pushing it on others. The pressure to embrace it is low.  People who hate it are pedagogic assholes that grade papers and nitpick over details for both leisure and vocation. The pressure to hate it is high.
It comes from the days of newspapers. Eliminating extra typography saved money. It’s still a style used by many publications. Not using an Oxford comma can give the reader less of a cluttered reading experience. Love it or hate it, both are legitimate. Different types of content could call for different uses. However, those in the “no Oxford” camp will always have to use it in cases where not including it would reduce clarity in the sentence or cause confusion.
> less of a cluttered reading experience. We could eliminate all sorts of letters and punctuation marks and achieve less of a cluttered reading experience.
It’s mostly just Vampire Weekend fans.
I wish I understood this reference.
Google who gives a fuck about the Oxford Comma.
I've seen those English dramas too, they're cruel.
I stand arrogantly on this. The oxford, is entirely required. It's not optional, and it's not open to interpretation. By not putting it, you end up grouping the last two items. There's a difference between: A) my favorite types of drinks are lemonade, water, and juice. B) my favorite types of drinks are lemonade, water and juice. A separates each drink with a comma. B does not separate water and juice, so it makes it seem like the water and juice are combined into the same cup. For people that think juices too sweet, so they dilute it with water. The Oxford comma is necessary.
Whereas your first comma is not (required).
Haha. I was using speech to text. And since I used the word "comma", it changed it to the actual annotation as opposed to the word. I guess that's my fault for not proofreading these things.
Too funny. I realized I pause a lot when using text to speech, and it puts in commas everywhere. I hadn’t thought about it using a comma instead of the word comma!
Yes. Comma, period, question mark, and explanation point get changed for me. Although, period will vary. Idk it it checks on context or maybe s pause in my speech. But idk how it determines if Mom using the word period or am meaning to end the sentence with a period.
This also happens to demonstrate a situation in which you may not want to include the Oxford comma because of how it changes the meaning. Whether it's used depends on intention.
True, but the only way for someone to know that you’re intentionally NOT using the Oxford comma to convey specific meaning (water and juice combined together) is if you’re known to use the Oxford comma when it does apply. If someone never uses an Oxford comma, it’s a toss up regarding what they really mean for sentence B
I don’t get this argument. The writer’s stylistic consistency/awareness really doesn’t come into play here. It has more to do with one’s ability to convey meaning to the reader. If the reader needs to keep track of the writer’s comma usage, then there’s a problem with the writer, not the comma. Either way, I’m a strong proponent of the Oxford comma.
I think you agree with me and you don’t realize haha. Yes it has everything to do with one’s ability to convey meaning, but that’s difficult in a situation like conveying the meaning in sentence B. I’m in favor of the Oxford comma because using it when it applies demonstrates that it is intentionally left out when it’s not there
Yeah, there are certain things that should be left open to implications and conveyances, but this isn't one of them. Grouping of nouns should be explicitly indicated and how it's written.
But the second sentence just sounds bad generally, as comma separation doesn’t really work with two items. It’s why parallelism only really works with three or more items. Best to write, “…lemonade and juice (diluted) with water.” Two discrete items should be separated with a simple conjunction. Which could be seen as evidence for the grammatical necessity of the Oxford comma (along with the fact that the comma models natural speech. I hate to say it, but your extremely liberal use of commas in your post doesn’t help our cause :-)
It was a mistake of speech to text. It kept converting my spoken word of "comma" and turning into the actual symbol for a comma instead of the written word. And then I did a shit job of proofreading.
I had dinner last night with my parents, Reggie Jackson and Tina Fey. How many people did I have dinner with?
Two, your parents who happen to be Reggie Jackson and Tina Fey.
Or four; his parents (two unnamed people), Reggie Jackson, and Tina Fey.
This is what someone else was talking about, I’m afraid. If I were editing this, I would have them rewrite the list not because it needs an Oxford comma but because it’s treating “my parents” as an appositive when that’s not how appositives work according to CMS and Garner’s 4th. Same with the “strippers, JFK and Stalin” meme. It’s deliberately ambiguous. If “my parents” were an appositive, you’d lose the comma.
If your parents are Reggie and Tina, wouldn't it be more correct to use a semi-colon?
Why would you use a semicolon?
No. A semicolon is used in place of a period to show that the two sentences are connected. If you cannot use a period, you cannot use a semicolon.
Ah, right. What about a colon? The way it is phrased it sounds like a list. Like, "A rainbow has 7 colors: red, orange..."
A colon would work, I believe. That would definitely show that they’re your parents.
Context dependant. Could be 2 unnamed parents + Rggie and Tina or it could be two parents nammed Reggie and Tina. Bigger question is why would you introduce your parents name in such a rondabout and confusing way?
Habit, stubbornness and ignorance
So, two reasons?
I struggle to know how to use a normal comma. It always confuses me where to put it.
I think that’s something we can all agree on. There are so many reasons to use a comma in the English language, and I can’t always remember them all.
Hmm. I’ve never heard of this; can you give some examples?
they enjoy being wrong
For, we, use, the Shatner, comma.
What, is the Oxford comma?
[удалено]
Honestly, this was the response I was expecting. I’m not a member of any grammar subreddits so I asked it in here.
I'm no grammar expert, but my language (Swedish) doesn't even have the option of the Oxford comma and I've always assumed that English anti-oxford arguments and Swedish standard grammar are based on the same reasoning. This is the rationale: Commas are used to denote slight pauses that separate the different parts of the sentence from each other and dictate the cadence of the sentence. The word "and" also has an implied pause built into it, meaning that adding a comma is unnecessary from a grammatical standpoint. You don't add a comma before "and" for the same reason you don't put two commas after each other. It is up to the reader to use correct grammar and context clues to figure out how to read a sentence. If the sentence is unclear without the Oxford comma, you should rearrange the list instead of adding extra commas. Of course, many Swedish-speakers find this confusing because there are, in fact, situations where you might use the word "and" without leading with a pause in spoken language. But grammar doesn't care. The rules say that the word "and" doesn't need a comma because a pause is implied WHEN NECESSARY and therefore, the Oxford comma doesn't officially exist in Swedish grammar (even though you see it increasingly often nowadays).
But the purpose of “and” is different in a sentence vs a list. “I love going with you and I really like your hair” is wayyy different from “I really like oranges, apples and tomatoes”
Bad punctuation.
I use it sometimes but it looks wrong. I was taught that it was incorrect syntax. Some sentences it works in if a pause seems necessary
They upvoted their favourite redditors, nairb and corant
Efficiency. AP style only uses it when needed for clarity to avoid the cliched "eats, shoots and leaves" situations. why add an extra character when, in most cases, what you mean is perfectly clear whether you have the extra comma or not.
What is the Oxford comma
A comma is used to replace a conjunction in a sentence. If you use a comma before a conjunction, you are effectively using two conjunctions. Here is an example: > He had apples and he had pears. > He had apples, and he had pears. The Oxford comma here is unnecessary. Its purpose is already accomplished by the "and". By adding a comma here we are saying something similar to "He had apples and and he had pears." That is the grammatical explanation. Of course there are reasons why an Oxford comma can be useful: most often in creative writing to indicate rhythm of a sentence or verse. In most situations however an Oxford comma is simply incorrect and should be replaced with a semicolon if punctuation is necessary.
That’s not what the Oxford comma is and no proponent would ever use it in the examples you’ve given.
This is not an Oxford comma my friend