The grammar checking software is wrong. You and your wife are correct. It's flagging your usage as incorrect because it doesn't fit some sort of established pattern, not because it's incorrect.
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.
I, guess, this, is, somehow, 'technically', correct, then, huh? I, wonder, in, what, context, that would be?
The context that would force me to slap you before you got to "somehow". I mean unless you're a really drunk William Shatner I guess?
Technically correct? Sure! How people speak (or write)? Not so much.
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?
"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.
Two brothers:
My brothers Jimmy and John
Three brothers:
My brothers Jimmie, John, and Jack
Four people, two of whom are unnamed brothers:
My brothers, Jimmie, and John
One brother, his genitals, and a second person for some reason:
My brother’s Jimmie, and John
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?
"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.
Two brothers:
My brothers Jimmy and John
Three brothers:
My brothers Jimmie, John, and Jack
Four people, two of whom are unnamed brothers:
My brothers, Jimmie, and John
One brother, his genitals, and a second person for some reason:
My brother’s Jimmie, and John
Looks legit until the last one. Comma usage seems to indicate that there should be three names in the example: the brother, the genitals, and a second person. But your example only has the genitals and a second person.
Also why did Jimmy change his name to Jimmie? Is he some kind of hippie?
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
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.
Then you shall die upon it by my hand.
The Oxford comma is not necessary as
We invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin.
and
We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin.
are the same.
If JFK and Stalin were strippers, it should be:
We invited the strippers: JFK and Stalin.
Alternatively, you can just write it with the plural noun at the end:
We invited JFK, Stalin and the strippers.
+2
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
That's...not what I was expecting to see this morning.
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.
Then you shall die upon it by my hand.
The Oxford comma is not necessary as
We invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin.
and
We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin.
are the same.
If JFK and Stalin were strippers, it should be:
We invited the strippers: JFK and Stalin.
Alternatively, you can just write it with the plural noun at the end:
We invited JFK, Stalin and the strippers.
Except no because anyone intending to say they invited the JFK and Stalin strippers would write, well, that.
Like just for example "We invited JFK, Stalin, and the strippers." Though I'd argue that using the phrase "the strippers" in the same sentence with JFK and Stalin means you better be referring to some utterly god damned legendary strippers :P
I mean there are totally sentences that make a good argument for the oxford comma!
Posts
The context that would force me to slap you before you got to "somehow". I mean unless you're a really drunk William Shatner I guess?
Technically correct? Sure! How people speak (or write)? Not so much.
Two brothers:
My brothers Jimmy and John
Three brothers:
My brothers Jimmie, John, and Jack
Four people, two of whom are unnamed brothers:
My brothers, Jimmie, and John
One brother, his genitals, and a second person for some reason:
My brother’s Jimmie, and John
Looks legit until the last one. Comma usage seems to indicate that there should be three names in the example: the brother, the genitals, and a second person. But your example only has the genitals and a second person.
Also why did Jimmy change his name to Jimmie? Is he some kind of hippie?
Steam: CavilatRest
Except no because anyone intending to say they invited the JFK and Stalin strippers would write, well, that.
Like just for example "We invited JFK, Stalin, and the strippers." Though I'd argue that using the phrase "the strippers" in the same sentence with JFK and Stalin means you better be referring to some utterly god damned legendary strippers :P
I mean there are totally sentences that make a good argument for the oxford comma!
But that ain't one of them :P
That reason being it's a fantastic example of the Oxford comma being superfluous unless shitty writing is involved? :P
The bad writing part is spot-on, though. That's kind of the point. :P
If you change the nouns the structure of the sentence is the same. So the writing is bad by virtue of its structure, not its referents.