If I eat some bacon, eggs, and toast …do you not think that the toast looks and sounds as if it might have been a bit of an afterthought? I do, and the effect is caused by that last comma, just before the “and”. It’s called a ‘serial comma’, though because the Oxford University Press Style Book commends it, it’s frequently referred to as the “Oxford Comma”.
Commas generally indicate a slight pause for breath, so that written form of the list makes me want to whistle a bit and put the kettle on before we get around to mentioning the toast. It’s therefore wrong. What I actually had for breakfast was some bacon, eggs and toast. No final comma before ‘and’, you see. No pause. Just a nice, fluid finish to a three-item list. Breakfast over in a jiffy, too.
Now, some people will claim this means I ate two things, not three, but I think it takes a peculiar kind of literalist to get confused on this matter. Eggs and toast remain two physical things even if the ‘and’ is taken to conjoin them grammatically, after all.
Oxfordians will also cite the old man who left his money to “Jill, Joe and Mary” and thus incited a family feud between Joe and Mary (who got half the cash between them) and Jill, who’s busy enjoying her half of the money all on her own. If only, they argue, the will had said “I leave my money to Jill, Joe, and Mary”. The final comma makes his intentions unambiguous! My advice to the old man is rather different: get a new lawyer. One that can write without ambiguity in a document where such a thing is important after all. “I leave my money in three equal shares to Jill, Joe and Mary” resolves the matter without recourse to extraneous commas.
Hilariously, Oxfordians point to this lovely example (allegedly written in The Times): “highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector”. Apparently, we all need an extra comma to persuade us that Nelson Mandela is neither an 800 year-old demigod nor a dildo collector. I disagree: anyone with the vaguest knowledge of Nelson Mandela knows this interpretation is wrong, so we don’t need the extra comma to clarify things for us. Furthermore, if the sentence had been written as “…encounters with a dildo collector, an 800 year-old demigod and Nelson Mandela”, would anyone be complaining? I think not… which goes to show that the Times writer’s intention was deliberately contrived ambiguity and humour.
Oxfordians also claim the avoidance of the comma is an unnecessary complication of the rules: you stick it between other items in the list. Why not use it at the end, then? To which the answer is two-fold: you don’t use it because the word “and” (or “or”) is acting as a list separator anyway. So it’s redundant. Moreover, there is no complication of rules taking place in any case because the very, very simple rule actually being applied is: “never stick a comma before a conjunction”. (Like all good rules, I’ll allow an occasional exception now and again -I’m generous like that- but the very strong emphasis is on “occasional”).
Rogers’ Corollary to that rule is: if you ever find yourself feeling that on this occasion it’s necessary to break the rule, re-write your sentence. You will be tempted to break it because the sentence reads as if there is some ambiguity or other that the additional comma will resolve. But this simply means you’ve been ambiguous in your writing and it’s your writing that needs to improve, not the rule of punctuation that needs to be broken.
Unfortunately, the serial comma is (apparently) taught as standard in the United States, so I’ve now just annoyed at least half my readership, such as it is; but there you go. Sometimes, these things need to be said!
If my readers could also absorb one other rule of grammar as well before they depart these pages in high dudgeon, I should be most grateful: the words “could”, “should” and “would” (see what I didn’t do there??!) are never, ever, ever followed by the word “of”. How we’ve managed to produce an entire cohort who think transcribing the sounds they make counts as writing, I have no idea, but “he could of done that if he’d wanted to” is an abomination that says to me, via megaphone, “I am either as thick as two short planks or can’t be bothered reading over what I’ve written to see if it makes sense before sharing it with you”. In either case, it’s a dumb thing to admit to.
Irregardless isn’t a word, either.
And if you are going to write up and say “It doesn’t matter, because language is organic and an ever-changing thing and you shouldn’t get too uptight about it; learn to love the evolution”, all I would say in advance is: it is only ever those who are incapable of sticking to rules that seem to think the rules don’t matter. I’ve never heard a legally-sober driver complaining that the drink/driving laws are a bit too strict or inflexible, for example. I have, however, watched plenty of busted drivers saying, ‘but I was only half-a-drink over!’, amounting to a plea to have the limit bent a little in their case because ‘it’s only fair, innit, guv’.
Er… no it’s not.
I was taught it was optional but the preferred usage was to omit it. However, looking around it appears I may be misremembering, or perhaps selectively remember only the journalism usage. Without thinking about it, I would take your stand.
I think you may have changed the emphasis of the breakfast example that wikipedia uses, because “bacon and eggs” go along together, so their example of My usual breakfast is coffee, bacon and eggs and toast, said out loud, makes a pause after “eggs” much more likely.
Anyways, if you haven’t seen Richard Lederer’s work, check out Comma Sense. He also uses the rule of pause, but concluding the opposite to you. That book is partially available through google books, if you aren’t opposed to that site. I had dinner with him not long ago, he’s even more entertaining in person than in his writing (and the old verbivore.com). He’s also put out some interesting little American history trivia books, for those interested in such things.
Of course, in this type of discussion, appeal to authority is entirely legitimate.
Irregardless, the rules of English do not need constraints as do the rules of math, though I cannot disagree with you. g,d&r
You are lucky you got this approved, given the start of your last sentence
I felt the blood pressure rise as I reached for the mouse!
I deliberately did the breakfast example as I did, because compound nouns do make life a little trickier. My point was that if the last noun is simple (“toast”), no comma is needed. And if the last noun is compound, re-write the sentence so that it’s not!
I will have a look at Lederer for sure (thanks for the tip). Funny thing is, to pause or not to pause must be a cultural/upbringing thing, really. We all ‘hear’ the written words in our heads differently. So, I don’t make that my ultimate appeal, really. I think my real appeal is to simplicity: have a look at that Wikipedia article’s summation of The AP Style Book: “Use commas to separate elements in a series, but do not put a comma before the conjunction in a simple series. But do put a comma before the concluding conjunction in a series if an integral element of the series requires a conjunction and use a comma also before the concluding conjunction in a complex series of phrases”. It’s a nightmare! I think “Don’t put a comma before a conjunction” is a lot simpler!!
Mr Rankin, who taught me English many years ago, would be happy with that, I think!
I meant to add that Lederer was also usage editor for the 3rd edition of the unabridged Random House dictionary. Plenty of stuff to find on the net.
The subject of perceiving regional differences came up during dinner, as his doctorate is in linguistic morphology and people always want to know how he got into broadcasting and writing. He was able to divine what part of which southern state a person he had just met was from. Yeah, I know, I should re-write that sentence.
I got the state right. Later I asked him if he thought there might be some parallel evolution in the way people from Boston and New Zealand modify their R’s. He doesn’t hear that at all, I guess it’s just me.
Personally, I always struggled with writing because I wanted to follow the rules. Then I discovered usenet, stopped caring, and the dam broke. I see my kids going through the same struggle – perfectionism without rewrites – and don’t know how to convince them practice with feedback makes perfect. Seeing Lederer in action (he puts on an amazing show, in this case for free for a school fundraiser, captivating adults and kids) really helps. English teacher as hero, imagine that!
You are spot on about the Internet “lowering” standards… and it being rather liberating to do so, freeing up millions (I would guess) to express themselves without being hidebound by archaic rules. Wonderful thing, on the whole, without a doubt.
I draw the line at things like ‘could of’ and ‘u wld thk ths gr8′, of course, but I really don’t care if a preposition is something you should never end a sentence with (Fowler was wrong on that, anyway); or if you split boldly your infinitives (Latin rule that has no place in English anyway). I don’t think it makes a blind bit of difference to comprehension when you break such rules -and precious little difference to the euphony of the prose, usually.
I love the idea that there is someone talking about language that inspires you, your kids and lots of others!
Mr Rankin lent me an ancient book I’ve never forgotten: explained why all the words for fancy *cooked* meats have their origins in Norman French (beef, mutton, pork etc), where the original animals -that needed mucking out- all have Saxon names (cow, lamb, pig). A lesson in class politics I’ve always treasured! (Bill Bryson says the same thing in his ‘Mother Tongue’, of course, but he’s being derivative, though a lot funnier!)
On a recent visit to the Oxfordshire Museum I noticed, on their information boards, inconsistent use of the Oxford comma. Is that ironic?
Hehehe. I don’t know, but it’s certainly delicious!