Live data from Hacker News

The Oxford Comma – Why and Why Not (2024)

deborahcourtbooks.com

61–69 of 69 posts

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

#61
I give up. How can we ever expect the subtleties of the Oxford comma—or perhaps whether a question mark should end a rhetorical question—to be widely understood when something as simple as use of the apostrophe is widely misunderstood?

If so many consider the apostrophe so complex and confusing to the extent some grammarians are now advocating we abandon its possessive form then for the life of me I cannot see how we can expect more complex rules such as the I before E, except after C with its many exceptions ever to be understood by everyone.

Both the greengrocer's apostrophe (pl: DVDs not DVD's) and the possessive form of the apostrophe are about the simplest notions one can learn in English.

Yes, these rules have nuisances but I'm not referring to them but only their most common simplest forms. (By that I'd exclude unusual forms such as whether it's best to use 'greengrocer's apostrophe' or 'greengrocers' apostrophe' or that it doesn't matter. Or whether three 'Ss' should be used when using the apostrophe such as Kiss's Building — the name brazenly embellished in the frieze on a building near me.)

My marks in English at school were rarely ever much above pass grade but even I had no difficulty in understanding the possessive apostrophe. In primary school we were taught this simplest of rules by just asking "who owns it?" then drop in the apostrophe immediately thereafter.

Q: Who owns the bat? If only one boy owns it then the answer is "It's the boy's bat." If multiple boys own it then "It's the boys' bat."

I cannot think of any rule much simpler than this, same with the greengrocer's apostrophe where just adding an 's' sans any apostrophe is similarly straightforward.

It seems to me that teachers of English ought to actually learn to teach as they did when I was a kid.

It's clear to me we need to bring the population up speed on the basics before venturing into esoterica, for all but the cognoscenti the Oxford comma can wait.

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

#62
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.

> There are so many times the Oxford comma prevents ambiguity. I have yet to see a counterexample.

In every counterexample that I have seen the ambiguity involves an appositive phrase set off by commas which is lurking nearby in the sentence.

Commas are the most common way to set off an appositive phrases but most sources say that em dashes and parenthesis are also acceptable.

This means you can use a simple rule and not have to worry about ambiguous lists: (1) always use the Oxford comma, and (2) if you need to set off an appositive phrase for an item in the list set it off with em dashes or parenthesis.

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

#63
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 seems you're speaking with a Lisp :P

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

#64
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.

"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!

Removing the Oxford comma not only fails to resolve the ambiguity, but introduces yet more ambiguity by implying Ayn Rand to be God.

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

#66
post #18
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.

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.

It eliminated some ambiguity. It should be quite self evident that even without an example it is quite impossible to eliminate all ambiguity (it’s a feature of human language.) The more important property is that it never introduces more ambiguity. Ie at worst it doesn’t help, but not making it worse.

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

#67
post #66
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.

It eliminated some ambiguity. It should be quite self evident that even without an example it is quite impossible to eliminate all ambiguity (it’s a feature of human language.) The more important property is that it never introduces more ambiguity. Ie at worst it doesn’t help, but not making it worse.

It did introduce ambiguity though. Without the comma it is 100% clear that sentence lists 3 people.

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

#68
When commas are used as part of a list of items, I treat them as if they’re bullet points written on a single line. For example, if you have items in a bullet list, but don’t want to use up all that vertical space, join the list into a single line and replace the bullets with commas. Or if the items are more complex, use a semicolon as the separator.

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

#69
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It eliminated some ambiguity. It should be quite self evident that even without an example it is quite impossible to eliminate all ambiguity (it’s a feature of human language.) The more important property is that it never introduces more ambiguity. Ie at worst it doesn’t help, but not making it worse.

It did introduce ambiguity though. Without the comma it is 100% clear that sentence lists 3 people.

Practically that would be very likely to be the case to the reader, but grammatically no, it's still ambiguous.

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

Betty could be both a maid and a cook. So there is still ambiguity.

Post reply on HN