The Oxford comma is a waste of ink. Change my mind

Status
Not open for further replies.

jayjoy

Est. Contributor
Messages
25
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
Just like the title says. Any sentence whose interpretation is somewhat ambiguous without the Oxford comma could be rewritten to avoid confusion altogether.
 
I'm no native English speaker, but a sentence without it just seems...not quite as pretty to me. Of course, in my language we use a whole lot more commata in general than English does, but I feel like the use of the Oxford comma makes a sentence more readable. No idea how to explain this any further though...I'm no linguist :)
 
Schwanensee said:
I'm no native English speaker, but a sentence without it just seems...not quite as pretty to me. Of course, in my language we use a whole lot more commata in general than English does, but I feel like the use of the Oxford comma makes a sentence more readable. No idea how to explain this any further though...I'm no linguist :)

It's interesting to me that you say that! I hadn't considered the perspective of somebody who hadn't been raised with English as a first language. I kind of get what you mean, but it's the other way to me - I prefer the 'look' of a sentence that doesn't use the Oxford comma. I also understand that sometimes the Oxford comma might make things more readable... But I hold fast to my opinion that simply rewriting the sentence would also make it more readable.

I think I remember you saying in another post that your first language is German? I've studied German off and on in school (I might take a couple college classes as well next semester) because a lot of my family lives in Germany. It's funny, though - I've never put all that much thought into how commas are used in the German language. I'll definitely be thinking of that next time I practice my German. :)
 
Typical American butchery of the English language YOU say your way of Spelling is best and correct yet the term "English" says it all if its spelt for example "colour" in England" then that is correct ,not "color" as is used in America! there are many examples i could use.Dont make it worse!
 
There's no single right way to use language. It's up to you whether you follow formal English grammar or use the Oxford comma. The most important thing is that you're unambiguous. Secondly, it's good to be consistent in the way that you use grammar.

You must have heard of the book "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" based on the joke showing the occasional need for the Oxford comma in removing ambiguity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eats,_Shoots_&_Leaves

A panda bear walks into a bar and orders a sandwich. The waiter brings him the sandwich. The panda bear eats it, pulls out a pistol, kills the waiter, and gets up and starts to walk out. The bartender yells for him to stop. The panda bear asks, “What do you want?” The bartender replies, “First you come in here, order food, kill my waiter, then try to go without paying for your food.”

The panda bear turns around and says, “Hey! I’m a Panda. Look it up!” The bartender goes into the back room and looks up panda bear in the encyclopedia, which read: “Panda: a bear-like marsupial originating in Asian regions. Known largely for it’s stark black and white coloring. Eats shoots and leaves.”

Consider the difference in possible meanings between:
"Eats shoots and leaves," and
"Eats, shoots and leaves."
 
michaelmc said:
Typical American butchery of the English language YOU say your way of Spelling is best and correct yet the term "English" says it all if its spelt for example "colour" in England" then that is correct ,not "color" as is used in America! there are many examples i could use.Dont make it worse!

This isn't a criticism of you, but rather of myself: I have a lot of trouble determining a person's tone while face-to-face, and it's even worse when I'm reading text and can't see their face. I'm not sure whether your "you" is a general one or referring specifically to me, and I'm not sure whether you agree with or are opposed to the Oxford comma. There are British style guides on either side of the argument.

I don't consider myself a 'grammar snob' (though this post might imply otherwise...); I very rarely use punctuation in texts and frequently use sentence fragments, but only if I'm reasonably certain that my meaning isn't obfuscated. I'm sure your writing style is probably very clear to you and people accustomed to reading it, but I'm having some trouble inferring your meaning, and for that I apologize.


tiny said:
There's no single right way to use language. It's up to you whether you follow formal English grammar or use the Oxford comma. The most important thing is that you're unambiguous. Secondly, it's good to be consistent in the way that you use grammar.

You must have heard of the book "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" based on the joke showing the occasional need for the Oxford comma in removing ambiguity?

Consider the difference in possible meanings between:
"Eats shoots and leaves," and
"Eats, shoots and leaves."

That's a very amusing anecdote! I'm not familiar with the book, to be honest. Have you read it yourself? Would you recommend it?

I very much so agree with your points regarding the importance of clarity and consistency.

I know my initial post came off as very one-sided; as I said earlier in this reply, I have trouble understanding tone when I don't have a person's face and voice to follow, or a novel's worth of text to establish overall tone. That being said, I am aware that, especially with my newness to this forum, my tone was not clear. This topic is a bit of a joke to me; I know so many people who will violently defend the Oxford comma. I don't care either way; I find the fewer commas to be a more attractive look, but as long as I understand the sentence, it doesn't bother me. What does bother me, however, is when people posit that the Oxford comma is a necessity, because I simply believe that to be a false statement.
 
"Let's eat, Grandma!"

versus

"Let's eat Grandma!"
 
jayjoy said:
That's a very amusing anecdote! I'm not familiar with the book, to be honest. Have you read it yourself? Would you recommend it?

Yes -- I was expecting it to be dry and boring, but it was actually very easy-to-read and quite entertaining. You'd probably need to have a slight curiosity about grammar rules to enjoy it. But if you like the panda anecdote, I think you'll enjoy it. :smile:

I've always been a bit obsessed with knowing "the right way" to do things. At school, I loved maths because of the simple, fixed rules. But English grammar has always been one of those that I've never felt quite "at home" with. I used to worry about it far too much, and became a bit obsessed with learning all the little rules, the precise definitions of words, and so on. I'd spend ages re-writing sentences to avoid split-infinitives or ending a sentence with a preposition, or... whatever.

And then I figured out that none of it really matters! You simply can't pick a set of grammar rules and apply them with absolute rigidity, unless you sacrifice readability and/or ambiguity. Pick a handful of books and you will see grammar being used in different ways, according to different styles and preferences.

My brain still sets of huge clanging bells when I see the grocers' apostrophe, or "less" being used incorrectly instead of "fewer" being used on expensive signage or official documents, but I've learnt to take a more relaxed approach to the whole thing and play a bit more fast and loose with grammar!

jayjoy said:
I very much so agree with your points regarding the importance of clarity and consistency.

Thanks. As I say, it's not my idea, and it took me a long time to recognise this. :smile:

jayjoy said:
I know my initial post came off as very one-sided; as I said earlier in this reply, I have trouble understanding tone when I don't have a person's face and voice to follow, or a novel's worth of text to establish overall tone. That being said, I am aware that, especially with my newness to this forum, my tone was not clear. This topic is a bit of a joke to me; I know so many people who will violently defend the Oxford comma. I don't care either way; I find the fewer commas to be a more attractive look, but as long as I understand the sentence, it doesn't bother me. What does bother me, however, is when people posit that the Oxford comma is a necessity, because I simply believe that to be a false statement.

Not at all! I mean... I've never seen a pub fight erupt over the use of a comma! :biggrin: I think you're safe.

Don't be afraid of being new -- jump right in. I think most of us have a pretty good sense of humour... And I'm pretty sure michaelmc was just giving you a friendly ribbing! Kind-of like the joke, "Ah, America and Britain... two nations separated by a common language!" :giggles:

And, whilst I'm certainly not dismissing what you're saying about yourself, everyone struggles to some degree when trying to understand the tone of written communication. I mean... what happened almost immediately after email and text messages became popular...? We invented emoticons. Text by itself doesn't convey tone, meaning, humour and intent as well as spoken intonation and visual cues. I think my favourite emoji on this forum is:

:neener_neener:

It's all good, buddy! And welcome to the ADISC clubhouse, by the way!

- - - Updated - - -

AnalogRTO said:
"Let's eat, Grandma!"

versus

"Let's eat Grandma!"

Ha ha! Exactamondo! :biggrin:
 
I always miss Oxford commas when people don't use them. That said, there are a hundred or so other crimes against the English language that I'd rank above this one--here on ADISC alone! I mean, we've got members who write (and presumably say) stuff like "should of" instead of "should've" or "should have." *cringe* How did you graduate from elementary school?! And then there are those who were apparently taught that "and me" is always wrong... Sigh...
 
Or as P. D. Q. Bach wrote and sang, "Throw the yule log on, throw the yule log on. Throw the yule log, on Uncle John." And that's why you need commas and in the right place.
 
AnalogRTO said:
"Let's eat, Grandma!"

versus

"Let's eat Grandma!"

Haha I love this! I can't eat Grandma; I'm a vegetarian!
(although... this is an argument for proper punctuation, not for the Oxford comma; the Oxford comma to which we're referring is the use of a comma before the "and" in a list (I'm not trying to condescend if you already know this, just pointing it out in case you didn't! I can never be sure with jokes on the internet...))

tiny said:
I'd spend ages re-writing sentences to avoid split-infinitives or ending a sentence with a preposition, or... whatever.

And then I figured out that none of it really matters! You simply can't pick a set of grammar rules and apply them with absolute rigidity, unless you sacrifice readability and/or ambiguity. Pick a handful of books and you will see grammar being used in different ways, according to different styles and preferences.

My brain still sets of huge clanging bells when I see the grocers' apostrophe, or "less" being used incorrectly instead of "fewer" being used on expensive signage or official documents, but I've learnt to take a more relaxed approach to the whole thing and play a bit more fast and loose with grammar!

I can completely relate! Like I've said, grammar normally doesn't bother me one way or the other, so long as I can understand it. I know that I make my fair share of mistakes, often regarding commas, funnily enough. I have a lot of trouble with formal essays because of this. One of my current favorite authors *hates* semicolons and frequently leaves dependent clauses as entire sentences, though, which does irk me a little, because on every one of these occasions, he could have made it grammatically correct without changing the word order or tone at all. Patrick Rothfuss, by the way - I'm referring to his "Kingkiller Chronicles" series. But reading his stuff has helped limber up my mind a little so it bothers me a lot less at this point.

tiny said:
Not at all! I mean... I've never seen a pub fight erupt over the use of a comma! :biggrin: I think you're safe.

It's funny you should say that... When I googled Eats, Shoots & Leaves, I found this quote on Wikipedia: "There are people who embrace the Oxford comma, and people who don't, and I'll just say this: never get between these people when drink has been taken."

Thanks for the book recommendation, by the way! It looks like something I'll really enjoy. I'll have to let you know whenever I get around to reading it.

As far as Emoticons go, I love the idea of them, I'm just completely unaccustomed to using them. I guess now is as good a time as ever to start! :educate:

- - - Updated - - -

dogboy said:
Or as P. D. Q. Bach wrote and sang, "Throw the yule log on, throw the yule log on. Throw the yule log, on Uncle John." And that's why you need commas and in the right place.

Haha! I love PDQ Bach. I'll have to check out that tune. Have you heard "new horizons in music appreciation", his take on Beethoven's fifth? My father performed that one with him once. It's a real riot.

Cottontail said:
I always miss Oxford commas when people don't use them. That said, there are a hundred or so other crimes against the English language that I'd rank above this one--here on ADISC alone! I mean, we've got members who write (and presumably say) stuff like "should of" instead of "should've" or "should have." *cringe* How did you graduate from elementary school?! And then there are those who were apparently taught that "and me" is always wrong... Sigh...

Like I said earlier, I prefer the look of a sentence without the Oxford comma (which, to be fair, is a rather irrational thing to have a preference for), so I understand why you'd have a similar preference to the opposite. I know what you mean with all those other expressions; they bother me a lot less now than they used to, as long as the meaning is clear. The "and me" one is another biggie, but I'm willing to assume that people are taking poetic license each time they say "and I" when it isn't grammatically correct. ;)
 
dogboy said:
Or as P. D. Q. Bach wrote and sang, "Throw the yule log on, throw the yule log on. Throw the yule log, on Uncle John." And that's why you need commas and in the right place.

:laugh: Fits right in with "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer."

Has anybody written a sappy love-song full of double negatives? We need one of those, too.
 
Theres a lot of talk about grandma here and i just want to say thier is no anything rong wiv my grandma i learned propa queens England at skool! lol
Rool Britanya!
 
jayjoy said:
Any sentence whose interpretation is somewhat ambiguous without the Oxford comma could be rewritten to avoid confusion altogether.
Semantically, you're probably right. However, rewriting can change more than just word order - it can also change emphasis, implications, and rhetorical impact.
 
jayjoy said:
Just like the title says. Any sentence whose interpretation is somewhat ambiguous without the Oxford comma could be rewritten to avoid confusion altogether.

You could rewrite it, with oxford commas.
 
jayjoy said:
The Oxford comma is a waste of ink. Change my mind.

I don't think we are seeing the real problems here.
The inverted question mark and exclamation mark at the beginning of a sentence in Spanish: Now that's a waste of ink !
 
Makubird said:
I don't think we are seeing the real problems here.
The inverted question mark and exclamation mark at the beginning of a sentence in Spanish: Now that's a waste of ink !

¿¡ Whaddaya mean !? ^^

I always thought French was the worst offender for wasting ink / paper. Sooo many silent letters! By the same token, I'm rather fond of the Japanese hiragana / katakana system, with a one-to-one correspondence between symbols and syllables and never any need for a pronunciation key because the symbols aren't ambiguous.
 
Cottontail said:
I always miss Oxford commas when people don't use them. That said, there are a hundred or so other crimes against the English language that I'd rank above this one--here on ADISC alone! I mean, we've got members who write (and presumably say) stuff like "should of" instead of "should've" or "should have." *cringe* How did you graduate from elementary school?! And then there are those who were apparently taught that "and me" is always wrong... Sigh...

In Texas, which has a huge impact on nation-wide educational systems, along with Florida, because the governors of each state happened to be brothers, and have a third brother (George, Jeb and Neal Bush) who works as a lobbyist for textbooks, and the governors of Texas , which the governor thereof has a couple of Real Powers such as commuting sentences and setting the curriculum of all the schools in the state, and otherwise has less political clout than the third runner-up for the Miss Texas pageant, and Florida has more powers--- but the one in question is he, also, controls the school curriculum. Thus between the two governors and their brother make up so much of the textbook purchases in the U.S. their agenda makes up such a large impact on the other states that it, de facto, controls the curricula nationwide. One such book "The Story Of Texas", required in 7th grade history, has a passage that amounts to "slavery was beneficial TO THE Slaves". I don't know any of the other states' curricula, all Texas save for a week in 3rd grade in Bloomington, Illinois. But in Texas there's a policy, or was, public school was a LONG time ago for me, which mandates that a child not be held back nor promoted more than one year from his/her age group. There are stories from the 60-70s of kids being college graduates very early, but not in Texas.
Ta-Da!, which is Data spelt sideways, I get to show off what I hope is the proper usage of the comma. Using a "." followed by a space to make several shorter sentences might be the best policy.
 
jayjoy said:
It's interesting to me that you say that! I hadn't considered the perspective of somebody who hadn't been raised with English as a first language. I kind of get what you mean, but it's the other way to me - I prefer the 'look' of a sentence that doesn't use the Oxford comma. I also understand that sometimes the Oxford comma might make things more readable... But I hold fast to my opinion that simply rewriting the sentence would also make it more readable.

I think I remember you saying in another post that your first language is German? I've studied German off and on in school (I might take a couple college classes as well next semester) because a lot of my family lives in Germany. It's funny, though - I've never put all that much thought into how commas are used in the German language. I'll definitely be thinking of that next time I practice my German. :)

Yup, I'm from Germany! If you ever need someone to check over a text or just want to practice German, I'd be happy to help out^^ (Criticizing grammar is my life :p)

I feel kinda dumb right now...after thinking the Oxford Comma over for a while, I realized that in a similar sentence in German, you absolutely wouldn't put a comma before the "and". So why do I do that in English?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top