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

51–60 of 69 posts

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

#51

Post by function_seven »

bennettnate5 wrote: post #49
EuanReid wrote: post #2

There are so many times the Oxford comma prevents ambiguity. I have yet to see a counterexample. Commas separate list entries, don't change it for the last one.

It's common in English writing to interject additional details in on a noun by using a phrase separated with commas. I've personally found Oxford commas can in certain cases make it unclear whether you're interjecting or not, like so: Alice, the cook of the house and the guest were very chatty that evening. Alice, the cook of the house, and the guest were very chatty that evening. In the second, is Alice the cook of…

If you’re one to omit the Oxford comma in your writing, then how do I resolve the ambiguity in your first example?

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

#52

Post by mmooss »

rawgabbit wrote: post #27
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.

If Betty was the maid and the cook, I would write... They went to Oregon with Betty who was a maid and a cook. If it was three people, I would write... They went to Oregon with Betty, the maid, and the cook.

> They went to Oregon with Betty, the maid, and the cook.

Betty could be the maid. English meaning depends partly on word order:

  They went to Oregon with the maid, Betty, and the Cook.
Still ambiguous.

  They went to Oregon with the maid, the cook, and Betty
  They went to Oregon with the maid, the cook and Betty
In the former, I suppose the maid might be the cook also. The latter moves more easily and with less ambiguity.

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

#53

Post by mmooss »

Joker_vD wrote: post #20
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!

Just put the colon there if you need to introduce a list, it's one of its functions. "I'd like to thank: my mother, Ayn Rand and God". The same goes for that "two strippers" example: "We invited the strippers: JFK and Stalin, to the party".

I want you to know that I would only write this in a discussion nitpicking about grammar: :)

> "I'd like to thank: my mother, Ayn Rand and God".

A colon should not connect a verb and its objects; generally you need an independent clause before the colon (i.e., a clause that could be a complete sentence). One could properly say,

  I'd like to thank the following: My mother, Ayn Rand and God.
Also, these examples leave ambiguity. Your mom could be Ayn Rand, and if she was, then you might very well think she was God, or be making a joke about it.

> "We invited the strippers: JFK and Stalin, to the party"

Nope. A colon isn't a parenthetical in the middle of a sentence; that is, you can't continue the sentence after a colonic phrase (there's no such thing so I made up that term :D ). And again, the clause before that colon is not an independent clause. One can use parentheses (of course) or em dashes for parenthetical phrases:

  We invited strippers (JFK and Stalin) to the party.
  We invited strippers - JFK and Stalin - to the party.
A proper colon might be as follows:

  We invited strippers to the party: JFK and Stalin!
But I'd put an em dash there (and to heck with LLMs and their em dash overusage).

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

#54

Post by mmooss »

echohack5 wrote: post #23
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).

The oxford comma debate is so annoying because it clearly has nothing but advantages. Removing commas from a delimited list does nothing to resolve ambiguity, whether lexicographically or syntactically. It's so useful as a delimiter and anti-ambiguity machine, that you don't even need spaces for it to work! See CSV or Japanese.

> The oxford comma debate is so annoying because it clearly has nothing but advantages.

.. if you care only about data communication and have no sense of beauty, aesthetics, rhythm or personality in writing.

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

#55

Post by [deleted] »

kstrauser wrote: post #43
rawgabbit wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Betty was the maid and the cook, I would write... They went to Oregon with Betty who was a maid and a cook. If it was three people, I would write... They went to Oregon with Betty, the maid, and the cook.

The maid implies there was just one. Who travels with their only maid? Who will keep the manor lights on?

[deleted]

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

#56

Post by readthenotes1 »

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))))).

It looks like you might have learned how to diagram a sentence as a youth

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

#57

Post by alistairSH »

Avshalom wrote: post #31
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.

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 th…

Fine, I’ll be boring…

We invited the strippers, Krystal and Britney, to the party.

We invited the strippers, Krystal, and Britney, to the party.

And yes, if strippers is made singular, poor Krystal becomes Schrödinger‘s Stripper.

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

#58

Post by rawgabbit »

mmooss wrote: post #52
rawgabbit wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Betty was the maid and the cook, I would write... They went to Oregon with Betty who was a maid and a cook. If it was three people, I would write... They went to Oregon with Betty, the maid, and the cook.

> They went to Oregon with Betty, the maid, and the cook. Betty could be the maid. English meaning depends partly on word order: They went to Oregon with the maid, Betty, and the Cook. Still ambiguous. They went to Oregon with the maid, the cook, and Betty They went to Oregon with the maid, the cook and Betty In the former, I suppose the maid might be the cook also. The latter moves more easily and with less ambiguit…

If Betty was the maid, I would write…

     They went to Oregon with Betty the maid and the cook.

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

#59

Post by rationalist »

ajdude wrote: post #37
EuanReid wrote: post #2

There are so many times the Oxford comma prevents ambiguity. I have yet to see a counterexample. Commas separate list entries, don't change it for the last one.

My heroes are my parents, Superman and Wonder Woman!

If Superman and Wonder Woman were the parents, wouldn't a dash or colon be more appropriate than a comma?

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

#60

Post by Rendello »

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).

You could make it a compile error like Zig (previously) did with tabs!
Post reply on HN