The Oxford Comma – Why and Why Not (2024)

https://www.deborahcourtbooks.com/post/the-oxford-comma-why-and-why-not

by taubek • 4 months ago

43 60 4 months ago

EuanReid• 4 months ago

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.

t0mek• 4 months ago

Only tangentially related (but hey, it's HN) - I'm so happy about the support/requirements for trailing commas in the modern language syntax:

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).

Izkata• 4 months ago

My very first programming language doesn't use commas:

echohack5• 4 months ago

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.

black_knight• 4 months ago

I like this:

stephencanon• 4 months ago

"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!

alistairSH2• 4 months ago

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.

Joker_vD• 4 months ago

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".

yellowapple2• 4 months ago

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

n4r9• 4 months ago

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.

dheera• 4 months ago

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.

luxuryballs• 4 months ago

“a maid and cook.”

“a maid, and cook.”

rawgabbit2• 4 months ago

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.

forgetfreeman• 4 months ago

As written it is perfectly clear that Betty is neither the maid nor the cook, neither of whom the author bothered to name in this sentence. If that wasn't the author's intention they should grammar better.

hellojesus• 4 months ago

Or just switch the order if Betty is the maid and you don't want to provide additional context:

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

KolenCh• 4 months ago

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.

ajdude• 4 months ago

My heroes are my parents, Superman and Wonder Woman!

rationalist• 4 months ago

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

bennettnate5• 4 months ago

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 the house or not? This is the ambiguity of Oxford commas.

function_seven• 4 months ago

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

tzs• 4 months ago

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.

semiversus• 4 months ago

You mean "Why, and Why Not"

cosmotic• 4 months ago

You'd only use the Oxford comma when the list is 3 or more items.

IAmBroom• 4 months ago

Still funny.

happytoexplain• 4 months ago

Spoilers: There is no "why not" in the article (aside from "tradition").

exacube• 4 months ago

obligatory oxford comma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_i1xk07o4g

leemelone• 4 months ago

It is important to use the Oxford Comma because it is commonly accepted, fits with tradition, and is just correct.

PaulDavisThe1st3• 4 months ago

.. and in your example, unnecessary.

Or maybe I missed the joke.

bluGill• 4 months ago

It is necessary because of Tradition.

I reject the validity of other traditions. Also: repent and join my religion.

smitty1e• 4 months ago

There is a book "Eats Shoots and Leaves" that gets at the importance of knowing when (and when not) do deploy the punctuation:

https://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuat...?

I also enjoy how meaning of a whole sentence can be inverted by a bit of punctuation:

a. "A woman without her man is nothing."

b. "A woman: without her, man is nothing."

joosters• 4 months ago

Lionel Hutz

Works on contingency

No money down

Always the best example for missing punctuation!

mjuarez• 4 months ago

obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2995/

gxd• 4 months ago

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).

card_zero• 4 months ago

I use it religiously just for shits, and giggles.

culi• 4 months ago

The Oxford Comma is not used with just two items. This is just improper grammar.

I mean you do you but don't call this the Oxford Comma.

Rendello• 4 months ago

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

hilbert42• 4 months ago

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.

neuracerebra-AI• 4 months ago

Oxford Comma ride or die. Give me a break. It is clearly the only way to do it. I will never understand these people.

orev• 4 months ago

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.

The Oxford Comma – Why and Why Not (2024)

Related Stories