For Clarity, Sometimes the Oxford Comma is Necessary

[Curt Harms]

I'd say that there is still a place in the world for english majors, but I'm not sure they even teach that kind of stuff anymore.

I'd settle for someone who stayed awake during English and composition classes in High School. I suspect that the spelling and grammar 'apps' don't help the situation much either. If there are no squiggly red lines it's good to print/send, no need to proof read it or consider if it really says what I intended to say.

[Bill Dufour]

The little cannibal boy said "what are we having for dinner tonight mom?". Or maybe it was "what are we having for dinner tonight, mom?"
Bill D

[Bill Dufour]

throw your mother from the train, a kiss.
Bill D

[Patty Hann]

my ford ranger pickup is oxford white. This has been a factory color for decades. No commas were hurt in the making of my truck. It is also vegan, fat free, gluten free, cholesterol free, low calorie and high in both fiber and iron.
Bill d

lol .......

[Patty Hann]

In a recent rereading of my typing this error was caught and corrected. It made me think of making a graphic device for remembering the difference between words that sound alike yet have very different meanings.

Attachment 519946

A few thoughts run through my mind to make sense of a sentence like, Mr. Eyore with your yore you're in the land of fantasy.

jtk

That's a pretty clever mnemonic

I learned a few...one comes to mind... principle vs principal:
"The principal is (or maybe is not) your pal."

One usage that a lot of people have trouble with is plurals vs possessives.
Adding s ( or -es) to nouns to make a plural does not require an apostrophe, unless the singular version was already used as a possessive.

In other words, this drives me to distraction: BANANA'S $0.59 lb.

One banana, two bananas
(Three bananas, four...
Five bananas, six bananas
Seven bananas, more...)

[Jim Koepke]

One usage that a lot of people have trouble with is plurals vs possessives.

The exceptions to the rules confuse some folks. The possessive its has no apostrophe the contraction it's does.

My own rule for verbs vs nouns (as in affect vs effect) is based on alphabetical order or out of order. In this case the verb vs noun is out of order.

Some folks mix up to & too. All too often it is not knowing when to use too. Most folks get two right.

Seen here on SMC a lot is vice instead of vise. Sometimes advice & advise get mixed up.

English can be difficult even for those of us who speak it throughout our lives.

jtk

[Alan Rutherford]

"Grammar is knowing when to say 'whom'. Tact is knowing when not to."

[Patty Hann]

The exceptions to the rules confuse some folks. The possessive its has no apostrophe the contraction it's does.

My own rule for verbs vs nouns (as in affect vs effect) is based on alphabetical order or out of order. In this case the verb vs noun is out of order.

Some folks mix up to & too. All too often it is not knowing when to use too. Most folks get two right.

Seen here on SMC a lot is vice instead of vise. Sometimes advice & advise get mixed up.

English can be difficult even for those of us who speak it throughout our lives.

jtk

I learned something about this not too long ago after seeing exactly what you describe rather frequently .
Here's the thing....in the US we make the distinction between the object that holds/clamps something (vise) and a very bad habit (vice) by the spelling.

But in the UK (and maybe Canada and Oz and NZ too) there is no separate spelling.
The thing that clamps is a vice and a bad habit is also a vice.

Source: Cambridge English Dictionary, also the OED

[Chris Parks]

I am curious as until recently I had never heard the comma called an Oxford comma. Is there another type of comma I know nothing about and if not why is it called an Oxford comma in the US?

[Lawrence Duckworth]

Ah, the Oxford comma. That minuscule punctuation point, a grammatical fly buzzing around the sentence, causing some writers to break out the metaphorical fly swatters of righteous indignation. For some, it's the cornerstone of clarity, the beacon that cuts through the fog of ambiguity. For others, it's an unnecessary flourish, a comma-shaped comma chameleon blending in with its brethren to create a cluttered mess.


But fear not, weary wordsmiths! Let's dissect this debate with the surgical precision of a brain surgeon operating on a thesaurus. First, the name itself. "Oxford comma"? Sounds positively posh, doesn't it? Like something you'd find mentioned in a dusty tome reserved for scholars who wear tweed jackets and debate the finer points of semicolons over sherry. Of course, "serial comma" just sounds utterly pedestrian, like a breakfast cereal marketed towards accountants.


Now, onto the so-called purpose of this punctuation pariah. The Oxford comma faithful clutch their pearls at the very thought of a world without it, a world where sentences could be misinterpreted in the most horrifying ways. They paint a picture of dinner invitations gone wrong, where unsuspecting individuals find themselves sharing a meal with not only their parents, but also William Shatner and Captain Kirk. The horror! But honestly, a little context goes a long way, folks.


But are the Oxford comma crusaders truly the heroes of clear communication? Nonsense! The comma-contrarians counter that this so-called hero is nothing more than a villain in disguise. They argue that it disrupts the natural flow of a sentence, a comma-shaped speed bump on the information highway. They point out that, in most cases, the intended meaning is crystal clear even without the Oxford comma clinging on for dear life.


So, what's a writer to do? Abandon ship in this sea of comma confusion? Nay! The answer, like most things in life, lies in glorious nuance. Here's the lowdown, courtesy of yours truly:


Clarity Reigns Supreme: Is the sentence a potential grammatical landmine without the Oxford comma? Then by all means, wield it like a mighty punctuation sword! Don't be a martyr on the altar of stylistic preference.
Style Guides: Friend or Foe?: If you're writing for a publication with a style guide that has strong feelings about commas (one way or another), follow their lead. Consistency is key, even if it means sacrificing your deepest comma convictions.
The Occasional Oxford Comma Caper: Even if you're not a die-hard Oxford comma devotee, consider throwing it a bone every now and then. It can add emphasis or prevent ambiguity, like a punctuation-shaped lifeguard saving a sentence from drowning in confusion.
Don't Let the Comma Wars Consume You: This, my friends, is a stylistic choice, not a battle for the soul of the English language. Focus on writing that's clear, engaging, and (hopefully) won't put your readers to sleep.
Remember, the Oxford comma is merely a tool, a very small, very comma-shaped tool. Use it wisely, use it sparingly, and for the love of all things grammatical, don't let it turn your writing into a comma cage match. Now go forth and write with purpose, my friends, and may your commas be ever so powerful (or delightfully absent, depending on your stylistic preference).

[Patty Hann]

Ah, the Oxford comma. That minuscule punctuation point, a grammatical fly buzzing around the sentence, causing some writers to break out the metaphorical fly swatters of righteous indignation. For some, it's the cornerstone of clarity, the beacon that cuts through the fog of ambiguity. For others, it's an unnecessary flourish, a comma-shaped comma chameleon blending in with its brethren to create a cluttered mess.


But fear not, weary wordsmiths! Let's dissect this debate with the surgical precision of a brain surgeon operating on a thesaurus. First, the name itself. "Oxford comma"? Sounds positively posh, doesn't it? Like something you'd find mentioned in a dusty tome reserved for scholars who wear tweed jackets and debate the finer points of semicolons over sherry. Of course, "serial comma" just sounds utterly pedestrian, like a breakfast cereal marketed towards accountants.


Now, onto the so-called purpose of this punctuation pariah. The Oxford comma faithful clutch their pearls at the very thought of a world without it, a world where sentences could be misinterpreted in the most horrifying ways. They paint a picture of dinner invitations gone wrong, where unsuspecting individuals find themselves sharing a meal with not only their parents, but also William Shatner and Captain Kirk. The horror! But honestly, a little context goes a long way, folks.


But are the Oxford comma crusaders truly the heroes of clear communication? Nonsense! The comma-contrarians counter that this so-called hero is nothing more than a villain in disguise. They argue that it disrupts the natural flow of a sentence, a comma-shaped speed bump on the information highway. They point out that, in most cases, the intended meaning is crystal clear even without the Oxford comma clinging on for dear life.


So, what's a writer to do? Abandon ship in this sea of comma confusion? Nay! The answer, like most things in life, lies in glorious nuance. Here's the lowdown, courtesy of yours truly:


Clarity Reigns Supreme: Is the sentence a potential grammatical landmine without the Oxford comma? Then by all means, wield it like a mighty punctuation sword! Don't be a martyr on the altar of stylistic preference.
Style Guides: Friend or Foe?: If you're writing for a publication with a style guide that has strong feelings about commas (one way or another), follow their lead. Consistency is key, even if it means sacrificing your deepest comma convictions.
The Occasional Oxford Comma Caper: Even if you're not a die-hard Oxford comma devotee, consider throwing it a bone every now and then. It can add emphasis or prevent ambiguity, like a punctuation-shaped lifeguard saving a sentence from drowning in confusion.
Don't Let the Comma Wars Consume You: This, my friends, is a stylistic choice, not a battle for the soul of the English language. Focus on writing that's clear, engaging, and (hopefully) won't put your readers to sleep.
Remember, the Oxford comma is merely a tool, a very small, very comma-shaped tool. Use it wisely, use it sparingly, and for the love of all things grammatical, don't let it turn your writing into a comma cage match. Now go forth and write with purpose, my friends, and may your commas be ever so powerful (or delightfully absent, depending on your stylistic preference).

Wonderful mini-dissertation
What say you about the semi-colon? (And , please no comments about a re-section of the large intestine :-p...)

[Lawrence Duckworth]

Buckle up grammar gladiator for a journey into the heart of the semicolon showdown! This punctuation point, a colon's awkward cousin with an identity crisis, has writers wrestling with more existential angst than a teenage Hamlet.


First, let's address the elephant in the punctuation mark forest: the name itself. "Semi-colon"? Sounds like a half-baked attempt at punctuation, doesn't it? Like a question mark that couldn't quite commit or a colon on a diet. "Independent clause semicolon dependent clause" is a mouthful that would make even the most verbose Victorian author blush.


Now, onto the so-called purpose of this punctuation pugilist. Proponents of the semicolon extol its virtues like bards singing the praises of a comma king. They claim it creates a smoother flow than a full stop, yet a stronger separation than a mere comma. It's the Goldilocks of punctuation, they argue, just right for connecting independent clauses with a flourish.


But are the semicolon serenaders truly the champions of elegant prose? Nonsense! Opponents of the semicolon scoff, calling it a pretentious poseur. They argue that a well-written sentence doesn't need this punctuation power play. A good ol' fashioned period, they claim, will do just fine, thank you very much.

[Patty Hann]

LOL ... thank you very much .
I am very fond of the semicolon.
I use it quite frequently when I write.... not so much when I speak.... ;-D

[Bill Dufour]

What about the police vice squad. Do they make sure wood workers have properly licensed and registered their vises. Do they give out free advice to vice owners and potential buyers.?
Bill D
Vote for Vince, the voice of vises. Vice free since 1973.

[Jim Koepke]

But in the UK (and maybe Canada and Oz and NZ too) there is no separate spelling.
The thing that clamps is a vice and a bad habit is also a vice.

Except in this thread, my current practice is to work on my own use of language and not chastise others for any alleged faux pas.

Though it sometimes amuses me to see our friends in other English speaking parts of the world say cramps for what we call clamps.

jtk