The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Use of commas: which rule wins?
Peeling
MrUKRegistered User regular
MrUKRegistered User regular
It is a rule that commas should not separate verbs in a compound predicate:
Most of the time, this works out fine. Either a sequence of events is clear, or any slight ambiguity is not detrimental:
The reader is free to envision any amount of overlap between the actions of waving and getting in the car. If I needed to be precise, I could say:
Most of the time, though, micromanagement of what the reader is watching unfold is not necessary and can be tiring.
However, in some cases involving intransitive verbs, ambiguity is detrimental:
The intended meaning is that Dad 'just grinned' in response to a prior event, she then tried to hit him (because he grinned), and he dodged (having presumably anticipated her reaction).
Unfortunately, it can easily be read as Dad just grinning and dodging as a response to her trying to hit him, which puts a very different slant on things. What is intended as a playful, knowing interaction comes across as Dad being a bit of a dick and a showoff.
Yes, it's possible to unpack that sentence to avoid the ambiguity, but the result is clunky. Instead, I think it's reasonable to invoke another rule of commas: that they should be used where necessary to eliminate ambiguity:
The resulting sentence would look like this:
To me (and to my wife, who thought this was how everyone did it), the pause has the intended effect of separating the actions of grinning and dodging. Grammar checking software disagrees. I'd be interested to know what other people think.
WRONG: He picked up his keys, and put them in his pocket.
RIGHT He picked up his keys and put them in his pocket.
Most of the time, this works out fine. Either a sequence of events is clear, or any slight ambiguity is not detrimental:
Dave waved to Janet and got in the car.
The reader is free to envision any amount of overlap between the actions of waving and getting in the car. If I needed to be precise, I could say:
Dave waved to Janet, then got in the car.
Dave waved to Janet as he got in the car.
Most of the time, though, micromanagement of what the reader is watching unfold is not necessary and can be tiring.
However, in some cases involving intransitive verbs, ambiguity is detrimental:
Dad just grinned and dodged when she tried to hit him.
The intended meaning is that Dad 'just grinned' in response to a prior event, she then tried to hit him (because he grinned), and he dodged (having presumably anticipated her reaction).
Unfortunately, it can easily be read as Dad just grinning and dodging as a response to her trying to hit him, which puts a very different slant on things. What is intended as a playful, knowing interaction comes across as Dad being a bit of a dick and a showoff.
Yes, it's possible to unpack that sentence to avoid the ambiguity, but the result is clunky. Instead, I think it's reasonable to invoke another rule of commas: that they should be used where necessary to eliminate ambiguity:
Let's eat Simon
Let's eat, Simon
The resulting sentence would look like this:
Dad just grinned, and dodged when she tried to hit him.
To me (and to my wife, who thought this was how everyone did it), the pause has the intended effect of separating the actions of grinning and dodging. Grammar checking software disagrees. I'd be interested to know what other people think.
Davenport is an app designed to help writers plot and plan their creative works. Download the alpha here!
0
Posts
I think the reason it reads badly comes down to the "just." Like you said, not separating them clearly paints an entirely different picture.
You can put a comma pretty much anywhere and it would be technically correct in some way, shape, or form (this is precisely why grammar checking software is so bad when it comes to validating comma usage). Commas can be used in whatever manner you see fit in order to accurately convey meaning to the reader. That's pretty much it.
The only exception to the free-love approach to comma usage is the Oxford comma. Everyone must use the Oxford comma. If you do not use the Oxford comma you are an illiterate peasant. I will die on this hill.
Inquisitor, you have my axe.
When in doubt leave it out. Turns out commas are not needed very frequently.
Edit: and I butchered the fucked outa that sentence.
That being said, I agree that in certain contexts it would be considered poor form (or even "incorrect") to separate two distinct statements via a comma.
we're about 25 years (and maybe 3 iterations?) into the process of building a new method of punctuating to serve the way we're writing on this forum, on social media, and in texts. Efforts to mimic speech in text, with the cadence and rhythm and voice of speech, are going to necessarily warp what we considered grammatically correct.
Clarity should rule.
Which made me realise; I don't know how to properly use semicolons; like; at all.
No one does. The people who say they do are lying. Or English professors. Who are lying.
I assume the “just” is to convey that the attempt to hit him was trivial.
But I’d probably just use the word merely rather than merely using just.
Then you shall die upon it by my hand.
The Oxford comma is not necessary as
and
are the same.
If JFK and Stalin were strippers, it should be:
Alternatively, you can just write it with the plural noun at the end:
The second sentence and the third sentence can be read as equivalent. That's exactly why the Oxford comma should be standard.
Consider that your rewrites hold true regardless of whether the Oxford comma is implemented or not. The question isn't whether or not it has flaws, but whether it is superior to the alternative of not including a comma before "and".
Also, your fourth example is technically correct but the second half reads like a new sentence fragment. Let's assume that mentally, most people treat commas as small pauses - not as replacements for words. If you speak aloud that last sentence with a pause only at that one comma, it even sounds weird. And if you speak aloud the second and third sentences, the comma and the colon are interchangeable, meaning the ambiguity translates both orally and in writing.
The idea that you shouldn't put a comma in front of "and" because "the comma replaces the word and!" is not a real thing substantiated in the real world. It's a fake rule invented by the same type of people who insist that you can't split infinitives or that you shouldn't begin sentences with "and" or that Latin prefixes should only go with Latin words (because we all totally speak Latin and coherently categorize the words we derive from other languages into English, right?). Language is about clarity, and grammar is descriptive of the actual language being used. It's not a playground for people to impose their ideas of what does or doesn't fit within their own peculiarities and categorizations.
The 2nd and 3rd sentences can be read as equivalent only if you choose to read them incorrectly.
You said the Oxford comma is necessary and I say it is not.
The second half of the 4th example only reads like a new sentence fragment if you choose to read it incorrectly.
You seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on whether or not pauses can be there without commas.
I would argue that you willfully misinterpreting written text as your motivation for enforcing the Oxford comma is you imposing your ideas of what does or doesn't fit within your own peculiarities and categorizations.
Yessss more pedantry, I love it.
You are interpreting as strictly a list, and thus requiring a comma. What it actually (in addition?) is is a nonessential element* of the sentence. You could delete "JFK and Stalin" from the sentence, and the meaning would still be clear. You lose some information, but unless the writer's main point was the strippers' names, it works.
Now, there are certainly ways to rewrite the sentence if the Oxford comma were illegal or something
*More specifically, those are nonessential appositives.
[Edit: I googled a couple random sources for examples of this: https://www.aims.edu/student/online-writing-lab/grammar/comma-rules, https://owl.purdue.edu/owl_exercises/punctuation_exercises/commas/nonessential_elements_exercise_2_answers.html, etc]
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
First, you can remove any number of elements (excepting the removal of *all* elements) from a list and still have the sentence make sense.
Second, if the writer's main point was to point out the strippers' names, then they should have used a colon, as two of the main uses of a colon are:
1) To introduce a list, and
2) To separate two independent clauses when the second explains the first
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I'm not saying a comma doesn't work. I'm saying it's not necessary.
The second could mean that for you non-Oxford-comma-using heathens, but it also could be how you decided to disambiguate it Both meanings are correct interpretations, so the original two sentences aren't the same.
Conclusion being that you should use an Oxford comma
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
If JFK and Stalin were the strippers' names, they would have been properly separated by a colon and not a comma.
Apparently Amor thinks it's a requirement? But it's... it's just not. I provided some links as exampled, I guess I can find more? Not sure if that would help though...
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
No, and my apologies for not being clear.
My example with the colon was not a list of three. It was a list of one (the strippers) and a list of two that described the first list (the names of said strippers).
My example with the lack of the Oxford comma was a list of three and its potential ambiguity (i.e. the final two items in the list being either additional list items or descriptors of previous list items) can be solved by the addition of a colon (for the latter). An Oxford comma (or lack thereof) should indicate the former.
I, guess, this, is, somehow, 'technically', correct, then, huh? I, wonder, in, what, context, that would be?
Teaching to non-native speakers that aren't at the upper-intermediate to advanced level yet, the comma would be removed because English generally doesn't separate the subject from its verb(s) like that.
Teaching to students learning how to write academically, I would also tell them to remove the comma or re-write because they are being trained in some manner to accurately convey complex information based on a standard. Throwing commas around willy-nilly is just asking not to be published or not to be read accurately.
Teaching in a creative writing class, I would tell them to remove unnecessary fluff ("just") and just(*wink*) leave the comma alone as that sentence is simple enough to not matter for its purpose.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I don't find either sentence less readable.
I think this is exactly why I was taught not to use the Oxford comma, back in grade school. For "bacon, lettuce and tomato," I think often the comma is elided, so it comes out "bacon-lettuce-and-tomato," but if speaking formally, "bacon, lettuce and tomato" doesn't sound wrong, while "bacon, lettuce, and tomato" sounds stilted. If I had to hand it to a speech synthesizer I wouldn't include the final comma because it would come out wrong. The same seems to hold true for other three word phrases like "Tom, Dick and Harry" or "lock, stock and barrel."
Each of those sound more natural to me (verbally) with the comma. Language is weird
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Not adding the Oxford comma means you jump through these hoops to rewrite sentences to resolve the ambiguity. Not to mention that you, the writer, may not even know the ambiguity exists while you are writing (because it's "natural" for you to exclude the comma) so you don't have the opportunity to fix the issue short of proofreading everything. Like, not even the blanket recommendation to add colons for all lists fixes this problem. "I am a big fan of: my brothers, Jimmy and John" can still be read as ambiguous because you don't know whether Jimmy and John are the names of the brothers or two other people entirely.
It seems to me that an Oxford comma doesn't resolve this ambiguity. How would it be phrased if there were three brothers?
That's because the sentence is syntactically incorrect. It should be written one of two ways:
or
Now, whether or not you want to include the Oxford comma in the second example is up to you, but don't insist that it must be there, because the sentence reads just fine without it.
"my brothers, Jimmy, and John"
The comma before the 'and' clearly indicates that this is a list of three things. If Jimmy and John were the names of the brothers and you put the comma there, it's no longer grammatically correct.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
No, three brothers (or, alternatively, other objects of fandom). I don't see a difference between "I'm a big fan of my brothers, Jimmy, Jake, and John" and "I'm a big fan of my brothers, Jimmy, Jake and John." Using a colon would provide clarity here, though.
The latter example could could also mean that you are a fan of those three people (Jimmy, Jake, and John) in addition to your brothers. You have no information on how many brothers you have.
Or if means that Jimmy, Jake, and John are your brothers.
Both meanings are grammatically correct if you exclude the Oxford comma, but we can't tell which one you meant. There is only one meaning if you use the Oxford comma. That's the difference that you weren't seeing
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
You're saying that "I'm a big fan of my brothers, Jimmy, Jake, and John" is unambiguous? Using the Oxford comma, how would you phrase "I'm a big fan of my brothers," where "brothers" encompasses Jimmy+Jake+John, versus the case where Jimmy+Jake+John are objects in addition to your brothers?
The perfect is not the enemy of the good.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I just think the "many cases" here is in fact very specific -- lists of exactly three items, where the first item is also a class that could encompass the other two items, and context doesn't help. I've never run across a situation in the wild where I thought, this is unclear and the Oxford comma would have cleared it right up. I'm always surprised the Internet decided to make a crusade out of it instead of more prevalent grammatical problems, like people throwing apostrophes at any word ending in "s."
The missing comma in front of the "or" cost $10 million.