Why We Need The Oxford Comma
[T]he comma separates items (including the last from the next-to-last) in a list of more than two — e.g.: “The Joneses, the Smiths, and the Nelsons.” In this position, it’s called, variously, the serial comma, the Oxford comma, or the Harvard comma. Whether to include the serial comma has sparked many arguments. But it’s easily answered in favor of inclusion because omitting the final comma may cause ambiguities, whereas including it never will — e.g.: “A and B, C and D, E and F[,] and G and H.” When the members are compound, calling for and within themselves, clarity demands the final comma. … Although newspaper journalists typically omit the serial comma as a space-saving device, virtually all writing authorities outside that field recommend keeping it — e.g.:
When you write a series of nouns with and or or before the last one, insert a comma before the and or or. “The location study covered labor, tax, freight, and communications costs, all in terms of 1972 prices.” While this rule is not observed by all publishers, it is valid and helpful. Professional magazines follow it frequently, and such authorities as David Lambuth support it. The reason is that the comma before the and helps the reader to see instantly that the last two adjectives are not joined. In the example cited, suppose the last comma in the series is omitted; freight and communications costs could then be read as one category, though it is not meant to be. — David W. Ewing, Writing for Results in Business, Government, and the Professions 358 (1974).
Here endeth the word of the Garner. Please forgive any typos; I typed this in by hand and may have transposed a few letters.
The function of language is to communicate; the function of usage rules is to aid in that communication, and it’s clarity and accuracy we should prize, not the saving of space. I understand why newspaper house style has historically prohibited the Oxford comma, and I don’t have a strong objection to that exception, but the newspaper as a medium is quite possibly on its deathbed, and in any case, the exception does not disprove the rule.
The Oxford comma lets you say what you mean. That’s why we need it.
Tags: Bryan Garner our friend English usage wars
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I was a Communications major before becoming an English Lit major, so I had the Oxford comma forcibly beaten out of me. I haven’t been using it in my fiction writing because I’m a bit of a comma abuser and I try to err on the side of comma-less caution, but I’m totally going back to using it now.
Another newspaper person here, and I didn’t read it as a jab, it’s true, I rarely see an Oxford comma here. And after years of working at newspapers…it STILL looks wrong to me. I put one in when I catch it, but I work in advertising, not news. An actual editor might take it right back out, but the advertisers never seem to mind.
The Oxford comma always always ALWAYS made more sense to me, THANK you for giving me a very good reason why.
(‘Course, I tend to sprinkle commas wherever there’s a pause in the sentence, so I may be a little comma-happy to begin with.)
(However, the “may not be around to enforce the rule much longer anyway” did seem like a jab/jibe. But my job’s at stake, so I’d tend to take that personally.)
I’m a pretty big fan of the Oxford comma. I agree with everyone who’s in favor of clarity and accuracy. Now, what’s the comma called when it’s placed before a greeting-type word (or an introductory phrase) and a name, as in, “Hey, Sars!”? That one seems to be fading quickly.
“I have equally never understood why punctuation is supposed to go inside quotation marks”
I think that this may be one of those usages that is legitimately changing to a new one in our time, like the old decree to use an apostrophe when making plurals of single letters (learn your ABC’s).
In both cases, we’ve now learned to parse words and sentences more precisely, sometimes letter by letter, as our use of computers etc. depends on understanding the typing of exactly one character (without the punctuation following it). So it now seems wrong to put end punctuation within quotation marks if it’s not part of the quotation, and it seems unnecessary to clarify the treating of single letters as words (because we see it all the time).
Myself, I split the difference on final punctuation within quotes; I’ll still do it with periods and commas, but put semicolons outside.
And then there was fussy Lewis Carroll, who insisted to the last that ca’n’t and wo’n’t needed 2 apostrophes each.
I am not poking fun at the straits of the newspaper industry. Okay? Pointing out that the straits exist should not be equated with having fun at their expense. Please drop this line of discussion.
People have been trying to get me to leave the Oxford comma behind. I have always refused because, quite frankly, a sentence with a series of items and no comma between “and” and the last item looks wrong.
Thank you for giving me a reason to continue my loyalty to the Oxford comma!
(Amanda, I’ve been known to replace commas with em dashes when separating thoughts. Granted, it’s not always correct, but it alleviates my own occasional boredom with commas.)
SERIAL COMMA FTW. I can sum up why in a single sentence: “I’d like to thank my parents, God and Ayn Rand.”
Serial comma is a must.
“And the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit-bats and large chu…”
Marry me?
And, of course, “tomorrow’s show will feature Sarah Bunting, a street musician and a dildo collector. Good night!”
I resent the implication that I am a street musician.
Finally, vindication! Thank you for publishing this, I had so many fights about it at my last job when we were editing texts together and I always lost, even though in my heart of hearts I knew I was correct. If only we could post this message on billboards or cereal boxes across the nation and educate people…
Fortunately, I set style, so I haven’t had to fight about it. But I’m glad that my main reason for requiring it is the first one you cited. The best reason for any rule is that it makes sense.
I wasn’t crazy about Vampire Weekend in the first place, but when I heard the song which begins “Who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma?” I knew I was definitely not a fan.
YES! Thank you. It drives me craaaazy when people don’t use an Oxford comma. That is all.
THANK YOU. My second grade teacher taught us that you didn’t need a comma before the “and”, and she would not listen to me when I told her that every book I’d ever read made use of the serial comma. In your face, Mrs S!
Yay! Thankyou for this. I always use the Oxford comma, because it just sounds more like how I speak. It’s good to know that I’m backed up by actual usage rules.
Grainger made me cry — in a good way.
And, yay for the Oxford comma!
*I* give a fuck about the Oxford Comma.
I too am a little comma-happy, and am a big fan of the Oxford comma. Love this post!
Hard to believe we’ve gotten this far into the Oxford comma conversation without anyone mentioning the famous (possibly apocryphal; I can’t be arsed) flyleaf: “This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God.”
[…] This, that, and the other reason for the Oxford Comma Jump to Comments I have to say that I’m very happy when I read this post, from Tomato Nation, about why we need the Oxford Comma. […]
I’m in the legal world, and much like newspapers, the Oxford comma is shunned as a matter of convention. I have had that corrected out of my writing by numerous more senior people. I hate that, especially since legal writing isn’t necessarily the clearest to begin with. I grew up using it, and still use it in my own personal writing.
Round One in the (three) ring (binder) goes to Sars! Now, dare she take on the semicolon for the championship?
So why do newspapers and most magazines not use the serial comma? My guess has always been that it’s to save space, but how much space can the missing commas actually save?
[…] Sars said it better then I can here […]
Thank you! As an editor (and a “commanist,” according to my silly boss), I am happy that you posted this. And, I am doubly happy that there is grammar-conscious blogger who is not a horrendous, smug, mistake-making blowhard about it!
Oh, I’m plenty smug. (And mistake-making as well; ironically, I found a spacing error in the original post that I had to correct. Sigh.)
OK, I’ll give you smug (I shouldn’t have slagged “smug” without qualifying the remark; smug’s kinda OK by me).
And we all make mistakes. HOWEVER… you do not appoint yourself the world’s teacher, or, say… off the top of my head… the Grammar Vandal) while making as many mistakes as you “correct.”
And… a spacing error is hardly a blip on the radar of writing errors! Oy.
Amen. I am a zealous fan of the Oxford comma and consider its use to be a sign of intelligent life. The fact that it is technically actually optional in what is considered proper grammar is unfortunate. Three cheers for the Oxford comma: hip, and hip, and hooray!
[…] I have to say that I’m very happy when I read this post, from Tomato Nation, about why we need the Oxford Comma. […]