Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Oxford Comma – Why and Why Not (2024)

deborahcourtbooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 69 posts

Re: The Oxford Comma – Why and Why Not (2024)

#31

Post by Avshalom »

alistairSH wrote: post #11
stephencanon wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'd like to thank my mother, Ayn Rand, and God" is the usual example. Yes, you can reorder the list to remove the ambiguity, but sometimes the order of the list matters. The serial comma should be used when necessary to remove ambiguity, and not used when it introduces ambiguity. Rewrite the sentence when necessary. Worth noting that this is the Oxford University Press's own style rule!

I always heard this one... We invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin to the party. [three groups invited - strippers, a president, and a premier] We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin to the party. [the president and premier are strippers] Very different visual conjured by those two sentences.

I mean first off: no the exact same image is conjured because we are reading this in context of knowing who jfk and stalin are and we know they aren't strippers and all language is contextual.

That said:

We invited the stripper, JFK, and Stalin to the party.

We invited the stripper, JFK and Stalin to the party.

The supposed ambiguity is back. Although again there is no ambiguity to the reader. The juxtaposition of the two versions wouldn't work as a joke if there was any ambiguity

Re: The Oxford Comma – Why and Why Not (2024)

#33

Post by tommy_axle »

black_knight wrote: post #28
t0mek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only tangentially related (but hey, it's HN) - I'm so happy about the support/requirements for trailing commas in the modern language syntax: x = [ 123, 456, 789, ]; It makes editing such a list so much easier. Also, the commit diffs are cleaner (you don't need to add comma to the last element when appending a new one).

I like this: x = [ 123 , 456 , 789 ]

Nah, prepending will lead to a messier diff than the parent example.

Re: The Oxford Comma – Why and Why Not (2024)

#34

Post by [deleted] »

black_knight wrote: post #28
t0mek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only tangentially related (but hey, it's HN) - I'm so happy about the support/requirements for trailing commas in the modern language syntax: x = [ 123, 456, 789, ]; It makes editing such a list so much easier. Also, the commit diffs are cleaner (you don't need to add comma to the last element when appending a new one).

I like this: x = [ 123 , 456 , 789 ]

[deleted]

Re: The Oxford Comma – Why and Why Not (2024)

#35

Post by h4ch1 »

comprev wrote: post #16
alistairSH wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always heard this one... We invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin to the party. [three groups invited - strippers, a president, and a premier] We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin to the party. [the president and premier are strippers] Very different visual conjured by those two sentences.

"John helped his uncle, Jack off a horse" "John helped his uncle Jack off a horse" Two very different outcomes...

shouldn't there be another comma after Jack?

John helped his uncle, Jack, off a horse.

Because while speaking it I only pause after uncle and "Jack off a horse" together next. feels like there should be another pause after Jack?

Re: The Oxford Comma – Why and Why Not (2024)

#38

Post by thom »

dullcrisp wrote: post #29
dheera wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like a case where we should just change the syntax. If Betty is the maid it should be written: They went to Oregon with Betty [a maid], and a cook.

(They (went (to Oregon) (with ((Betty (a maid)) and (a cook))))). ((That (is (the (most natural) syntax))) and ((all (of us)) (should (switch (to it))))).

Many years ago working on natural language to SQL, when we had ambiguities this is how we’d clarify things with the user (albeit with the minimal amount of brackets necessary).

Re: The Oxford Comma – Why and Why Not (2024)

#39

Post by card_zero »

gxd wrote: post #36

I banned the Oxford comma in all writing within my individual business. In fact, I released an entire 100K+ word narrative game without using Oxford commas (I consider it a bug if I left any behind).

I use it religiously just for shits, and giggles.

Re: The Oxford Comma – Why and Why Not (2024)

#40

Post by 1659447091 »

dheera wrote: post #22
n4r9 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia has an interesting example where it's still ambiguous: They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and a cook. It's not clear whether Betty is the maid. But tbh removing the comma doesn't help either. Personally if I wanted to indicate that Betty was the maid I would put "a maid" between brackets or hyphens.

This sounds like a case where we should just change the syntax. If Betty is the maid it should be written: They went to Oregon with Betty [a maid], and a cook.

This is how I was taught. Use ( ) or -- -- here and the Oxford comma for list of 3 or more.

I get lazy with adding the comma before the "and" in list, and without fail I hear my grandmother/father/teachers pointing out how wrong I am for doing so. Same for my use of semicolons followed by "and" or "but".

I never realized the Oxford comma was even something up for debate.

Post reply on HN