# Comma Usage



## Michael (Aug 6, 2011)

1. Johnny put down the fork, picked up the spoon, and proceeded to eat his soup.

2. Johnny put down the fork, picked up the spoon and proceeded to eat his soup.​

Which are you partial to?

The first example uses a *serial comma* after the word "spoon". However I don't see much of it anymore these days. Perhaps only in situations like this where the last item contains the word "and" within itself:


3. Johnny piled his plate high with biscuits, coleslaw, and macaroni and cheese.​

Is one use more correct than the other? Is literature trending away from serial comma use entirely? This certainly seems to be the case in journalism. Thoughts...?


----------



## JennyG (Aug 6, 2011)

aaarrggghhhh - if I'm not mistaken your first example is the dreaded "Oxford", aka totally superfluous, comma. Have nothing to do with it!!
I hear it's on the way out anyway.


----------



## Michael (Aug 6, 2011)

JennyG said:


> if I'm not mistaken your first example is the dreaded "Oxford"



Yes, I've heard it called that as well. I suppose that title would be more common across the pond.


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 6, 2011)

The Oxford comma is a fundamental of the faith. Sometimes, it makes a big difference:

1. Our moving help consists of two friends from work, Greg and Pete.

2. Our moving help consists of two friends from work, Greg, and Pete.

#1 is ambiguous, either 2 or 4 people. #2 is clearly 4 people. HOWEVER, if you know the author uses the Oxford comma, then you would know that #1 referred to 2 people. 

Or, these two sentences:

1. Life is nasty, brutish and short.

2. Life is nasty, brutish, and short.

In #1, "brutish and short" can be further list items in parallel with "nasty," or they can be appositives, clarifying the precise sense of nasty. In #2, they are clearly list items. HOWEVER, if you know that an author uses the Oxford/serial comma, then you can be sure that #1 contains an appositive phrase, not a list.

So, you see, the Oxford comma aids clarity, even (especially!) when it doesn't occur in a sentence.


----------



## Edward (Aug 6, 2011)

Even Oxford is turning away:

Punctuation - University of Oxford

It is a sign of declining literacy.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Aug 6, 2011)

Abeka still teaches the serial comma, and the ACT/SAT expects students to know it.


----------



## MarieP (Aug 6, 2011)

CharlieJ said:


> The Oxford comma is a fundamental of the faith.



Amen! Preach it, brother!

Actually, journalism is known for not using the serial comma. That's what the official Associate Press handbook says, at least when I took journalism 10 years ago.


The third example given in the OP is interesting. If I said, "Johnny piled his plate high with biscuits, coleslaw, and macaroni and cheese," you'd have three things on the plate. But if I said, "Johnny piled his plate high with biscuits, coleslaw, macaroni, and cheese," you'd have four, and the cheese would stand alone.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 6, 2011)

Commas aren't just about following rules. They have purpose. They are signals to the reader. They improve a sentence's flow and make meanings more clear. So when in doubt, don't look to a rule but rather use a comma (or don't) based on what will best help your reader to understand you and to read the text with the flow you desire.

That said, in general I prefer to omit the "Oxford comma." But there are many cases, like the macaroni and cheese example, where it is helpful and should be used.


----------



## Kim G (Aug 6, 2011)

At the school I went to, we would be docked a full letter grade on English/literature papers if we didn't use the Oxford comma. I prefer it. However, the journalism classes did NOT use the Oxford comma. To each his own. (Or, as will sadly be correct some day, "to each their own." Ugg!)


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 6, 2011)

Here's fun and useful tome on the subject at hand....

Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 6, 2011)

The Oxford comma is a bedrock to proper English grammar. Without it language is confusing, brutish and banal. Or, is it confusing, brutish, and banal? See, it makes a difference.


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 6, 2011)

Kim G said:


> At the school I went to, we would be docked a full letter grade on English/literature papers if we didn't use the Oxford comma.



Insane fixation on (inconsistently applied) minutiae and neglect of content and rigorous thinking pretty much sums up said school.

---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------




Edward said:


> Even Oxford is turning away:
> 
> Punctuation - University of Oxford
> 
> It is a sign of declining literacy.



However, rumors of the comma's death at Oxford are greatly exaggerated. The style sheet specifies only departmental guideliness for PR writing. It is NOT the authoritative Oxford style guide followed by the editorial department and Oxford University Press.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Aug 6, 2011)

I always use the cereal comma.


----------



## Berean (Aug 6, 2011)

Joseph Scibbe said:


> I always use the cereal comma.



Like this? View attachment 2153


----------



## Kim G (Aug 6, 2011)

CharlieJ said:


> Kim G said:
> 
> 
> > At the school I went to, we would be docked a full letter grade on English/literature papers if we didn't use the Oxford comma.
> ...



Ha! So true. I helped four friends pass English classes. I taught them a formula for writing papers that never failed to get a decent grade, regardless of content.


----------



## Wayne (Aug 6, 2011)

STRUNK & WHITE!

Rule #2 in the Elementary Rules of Usage, found on page 2 of The Elements of Style. The rule states:

In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 6, 2011)

I had a law suit involving a commercial lease. The building burned down from a fire started in my client's portion of the building. The cause was never discovered. It could have been the wiring or it could have been my client's refrigerator. 

The landlord's insurer was suing the tenant, relying upon a passage in the lease the landlord had drafted saying the tenant would hold him harmless for "any damage resulting from tenant's negligence, misconduct, willful misuse of property and operation of business." 

The insurer was arguing that no causation had to be demonstrated because it was related to the operation of business.

The court ruled in our favor on summary judgment largely because there was no serial comma in that list (and also because of the "and" instead of an "or"). A plain reading could mean that indemnity didn't get triggered unless the insurer demonstrated both willful misuse of property and operation of business. The court also said that, without the comma, "willful misuse" could be modifying "conduct of business."

There were other legal issues that swayed the court, but the lack of a serial comma did its part in derailing a $ 4 Million claim. And it was kind of cool to argue grammar to a judge who understood such things. 

Moral of the story: lack of the Oxford comma can be costly in contracts.


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 6, 2011)

Wayne said:


> STRUNK & WHITE!
> 
> Rule #2 in the Elementary Rules of Usage, found on page 2 of The Elements of Style. The rule states:
> 
> In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last.



Strunk and White has probably done more to dumb down the proper usage of grammar in the classroom than any other 'academic' text, to wit: 50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education


----------



## blhowes (Aug 6, 2011)

Call me old fashioned, but I think under absolutely no circumstances should that comma be omitted because its gramatically correct, it flows better and it shows that the writer has a good handle on the rules of grammar.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Aug 6, 2011)

We were taught the Oxford comma in Oxford, Mississippi.


----------



## Sarah (Aug 6, 2011)

I never knew it was called the Oxford comma, but it is definitely the correct way. I don't see any reason not to use that comma. In addition to being a simpler rule that makes more sense, it also looks more like the way it sounds. Whenever I read a sentence that should have that comma but doesn't, I feel the need to skip the natural pause that would come between the last two items in the series, and that sounds bad. And then I think, "This author is one of _those_ people."


----------



## AThornquist (Aug 6, 2011)

I don't think anyone can say what the real grammar rules are. People view grammar differently, and it is the height of arrogance to say that your grammar rules are better than someone else's grammar rules. We should all live peacefully and have the freedom to express how we differ with our grammar, but I think we can also find out a lot of commonality despite our differences. Let's just focus on those things that we can embrace together without forcing our systems on each other.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 6, 2011)

AThornquist said:


> I don't think anyone can say what the real grammar rules are. People view grammar differently, and it is the height of arrogance to say that your grammar rules are better than someone else's grammar rules. We should all live peacefully and have the freedom to express how we differ with our grammar, but I think we can also find out a lot of commonality despite our differences. Let's just focus on those things that we can embrace together without forcing our systems on each other.



Andrew, I think your humor is just a touch too subtle tonight. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were arguing the way a PCUSA elder might argue.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Aug 6, 2011)

Nah. I'm a PCUSA elder, and I would force the Oxford comma on ya in a heartbeat!


----------



## Jack K (Aug 6, 2011)

blhowes said:


> Call me old fashioned, but I think under absolutely no circumstances should that comma be omitted because its gramatically correct, it flows better and it shows that the writer has a good handle on the rules of grammar.



Yet you omitted it in that very sentence. Intentional?

Being cute, I think.


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Aug 6, 2011)

I love commas,perhaps for the wrong reasons 1) It slows me down as I'm reading just to think a little bit more.
2) All of my favorite preachers and writers would use a ton of them.
3) Those same writers/preachers must be covering a lot of ground because of 
the abundance of commas,many modern writers don't have much depth so 
there would be no need for many commas anyway,even if they were using 
them rightly.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Aug 6, 2011)

Hi:

There is even another option: 3. Johnny put down the fork, picked up the spoon, and, proceeded to eat his soup.

In my humble opinion all three are correct, and, it depends upon what the author is trying to emphasize.

My 2c

-Have a great Lord's Day!

-Rob


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 6, 2011)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Nah. I'm a PCUSA elder, and I would force the Oxford comma on ya in a heartbeat!



Oops, I should have been more careful. I know that there are still a few faithful PCUSA elders--my cousin was a PCUSA elder who subscribed to the WCF in full. But he left the PCUSA recently.


----------



## Berean (Aug 7, 2011)

blhowes said:


> should that comma be omitted because *its* _*gramatically*_ correct,



And we could start a new thread on apostrophes and spelling.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 7, 2011)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Here's fun and useful tome on the subject at hand....
> 
> Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation



In case folks don't want to read the review or the book (it's funny, BTW), the title refers to a Panda.

The panda eats shoots and leaves. 

Or maybe the panda, as a matter of habit, eats, shoots, and leaves.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 7, 2011)

Berean said:


> blhowes said:
> 
> 
> > should that comma be omitted because *its* _*gramatically*_ correct,
> ...



Don't tempt me, brother. I've come close several times.

I used to be an active participant on the Apostrophe Protection Society forum.


----------



## Michael (Aug 7, 2011)

This thread turned out much more entertaining than I expected. Thanks for the input everyone.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 7, 2011)

Jack K said:


> Yet you omitted it in that very sentence. Intentional?
> 
> Being cute, I think.


Yeah, just kidding around...or, maybe I don't have a good handle on the rules of grammar... we may never know.

---------- Post added at 06:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:47 AM ----------




Berean said:


> And we could start a new thread on apostrophes and spelling.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Aug 7, 2011)

I never could spell worth a lick, and "spellcheck" has made it worse. Slop it down on paper and let the computer sort it is the new mantra. Why did I spend all that time in grade school?


----------



## Micah Everett (Aug 7, 2011)

CharlieJ said:


> The Oxford comma is a fundamental of the faith. Sometimes, it makes a big difference:



Indeed, as in this case:

I would like to thank my parents, Ayn Rand, and God. (Correct, with that ever-important comma.)

OR

I would like to thank my parents, Ayn Rand and God. ("Correct" according to AP style, but ambiguous if not inadvertently blasphemous.)

Fundamental of the faith, indeed!


----------



## Scottish Lass (Aug 7, 2011)

CalvinandHodges said:


> There is even another option: 3. Johnny put down the fork, picked up the spoon, and, proceeded to eat his soup.



I don't think so. I'm not familiar with a rule that allows for a comma after a conjunction in that way.


----------



## JennyG (Aug 7, 2011)

Scottish Lass said:


> Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges
> There is even another option: 3. Johnny put down the fork, picked up the spoon, and, proceeded to eat his soup.
> I don't think so. I'm not familiar with a rule that allows for a comma after a conjunction in that way.


certainly not! that really would be on a par with Eats, shoots, and leaves


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 7, 2011)

Scottish Lass said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > There is even another option: 3. Johnny put down the fork, picked up the spoon, and, proceeded to eat his soup.
> ...



Nope, never heard of that one.


----------



## JennyG (Aug 7, 2011)

Micah Everett said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > The Oxford comma is a fundamental of the faith. Sometimes, it makes a big difference:
> ...


with the possibility of a solecism of that kind looming, I think personally I wouldn't leave it all up to the humble comma, but go for a belt-and-braces approach, something like:
...firstly my parents, secondly Ayn Rand, but of course most importantly,....


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 7, 2011)

I still remember my second grade teacher telling us that while many in that day (1966) were dispensing with the Oxford comma, she preferred its use. Since I really liked my second grade teacher, I have done so, thinking of her nearly every time I do.


----------



## he beholds (Aug 7, 2011)

Micah Everett said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > The Oxford comma is a fundamental of the faith. Sometimes, it makes a big difference:
> ...


 That is a great example. I had fun reading the first sentence just knowing where you were going with it.


Scottish Lass said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > There is even another option: 3. Johnny put down the fork, picked up the spoon, and, proceeded to eat his soup.
> ...



The commas flanking "and" actually confuse me. Now I have no idea what you are saying with that and. What is the intended function of and in that sentence?


----------



## PatrickTMcWilliams (Aug 7, 2011)

Am I in favor of using the Oxford comma? Yes, yes, and yes!


----------



## Michael (Aug 7, 2011)

CalvinandHodges said:


> There is even another option: 3. Johnny put down the fork, picked up the spoon, and, proceeded to eat his soup.



Hey Rob. Your 3rd option is really, REALLY bothering my wife. Not sure that she will be able to sleep well tonight. Just thought you should know.


----------



## Skyler (Aug 7, 2011)

Kim G said:


> (Or, as will sadly be correct some day, "to each their own." Ugg!)



Technically, that is correct today and has been since Shakespeare.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Aug 7, 2011)

Skyler said:


> Kim G said:
> 
> 
> > (Or, as will sadly be correct some day, "to each their own." Ugg!)
> ...



Again, not on the SAT/ACT or AP tests. Not that these are be all, end all, but students are still expected to know to match singular pronouns, referents, antecedents, etc.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Aug 7, 2011)

Hi:

The use that I have proposed above is archaic - particularly used by Chaucer, Shakespeare, and the Puritans whose works have not been updated. The general use of the comma is to create a pause when reading - which is also the functions of the semi-colon and the colon as well (which are stronger pauses). Writing is an attempt to reproduce speaking. The setting off of "and" in commas was to put the emphasis on the word: Johnny put down his fork, picked up his spoon - and - proceeded to eat his soup.

Hope this clears things up.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## jennywigg (Aug 12, 2011)

As a copy editor, I beg you to use the Oxford comma. For the love of Pete, use it, man!


----------



## timmopussycat (Aug 12, 2011)

Joseph Scibbe said:


> I always use the cereal comma.



If you do, you will be in commatose condition!


----------

