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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Traemo said:
Semantically, you're probably right. However, rewriting can change more than just word order - it can also change emphasis, implications, and rhetorical impact.

I see what you did there! I'm in favor of the Oxford comma. Most of the time you can suss things out without it but it is decidedly less clear overall, and I think that is best avoided.
 
Guys, there is a third option to using the oxford (British) comma or not.

Use the merriam webster (American) comma instead.
 
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 !

No way! Those characters are purposeful and beautiful! They let you know in advance whether a sentence is an exclamation or question, making it much easier to read with the correct intonation. And they have that aesthetic rotational symmetry!

It's those funny guillemets (angle quotes) that some languages use to indicate speech. Shudder. That's just weird-looking! :biggrin:
 
There's also the usage of a comma with conjunctions. If you're joining to ideas and both parts have a noun and verb, you have to use a comma.

"The rain loosened the soil, and the mud slide tore the guardrail away.

When the coordinating conjunction joins without one segment having a verb:

"We sanded and stained the old oak table."

I had to look this case up when I was writing my novel. Another one that is hard to remember, at least for me, is when to use "which" and when to use "than". English can be a difficult language to master when writing.
 
Traemo said:
Semantically, you're probably right. However, rewriting can change more than just word order - it can also change emphasis, implications, and rhetorical impact.

True. In the case of a novel or lengthy document, though, there is enough time to establish a writing style. The overall writing style affects the emphasis in individual sentences more than whether the author uses the Oxford comma; at that point, consistency is what really matters.


Schwanensee said:
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)

Thanks! I'm definitely going to take you up on that offer in the future. Be forewarned, though, my German grammar is prettttty bad.


dogboy said:
I had to look this case up when I was writing my novel. Another one that is hard to remember, at least for me, is when to use "which" and when to use "than". English can be a difficult language to master when writing.

I've seen you mention your novel a couple times in the forums. Is this something you've completed? I'd be interested to hear about it if you're willing to share.
I also have much trouble differentiating "which" and "than." Every time I use one in a formal essay, I have to look it up!
 
dogboy said:
Another one that is hard to remember, at least for me, is when to use "which" and when to use "than". English can be a difficult language to master when writing.

jayjoy said:
I also have much trouble differentiating "which" and "than." Every time I use one in a formal essay, I have to look it up!

You mean "which" and "that"? I remember that annoying paperclip in Word trying to teach me the difference! Grr!

According to Clippy, when used as to clarify a statement (as opposed to asking a question), "which" is followed by a supplemental clause, while "that" is followed by a necessary one. And you need to use a comma before "which", but not "that".

So, "the dog that farted" refers specifically the farting dog; whereas "the dog, which farted" refers to the dog... which (inconsequentially) farted.

I think there's an argument that, without a comma, "which" and "that" are synonymous... Or at least unambiguous.

---

One of the most heinous crimes of language that I happily commit on a regular basis is in using conjunctions (e.g. and, or, but, etc.) to start a sentence... or even (gasp!) a paragraph!

And I feel no shame when doing this in casual writing, such as here, because sometimes it helps separate "major" (more encompassing) points from "minor" ones, just like the Oxford comma separates the smaller ones.

But I would never start a sentence (let alone a paragraph) with a conjunction in formal writing.

---

As regular forumites may have noticed... I have a particular obsession for the ellipsis (the three dot symbol that indicates a trailing off of thought). Maybe it's because I'm so absent-minded and jump between thoughts a lot... or maybe it just visually separates thoughts in a way in which commas, semicolons, sentences and paragraphs just aren't sufficient...?

I also like the ellipsis followed by a question mark (as above)! It invites more thought and indicates that I'm brainstorming rather then defending a proper argument.

---

The thing that I struggle with is the placing of punctuation inside or outside of quotation marks when the quotation is not a full sentence. I sort-of know the rules... but no one obeys them! And they don't seem logical. So I often omit unnecessary commas before and inside the end of speech marks. They're pointless.

---

Talking of speech marks... Why for the love of sanity do some people say "quote-unquote" before quoting something?! That's the verbal equivalent of saying that Bob said "" No! I'm at the end of my tether and I simply cannot put up with Bob saying that to me again.

It causes the very ambiguity that speech marks are supposed to solve!
 
I guess it does not matter until it costs you $5 million. Many times the Oxford comma is used to write out a list and it becomes important in a few cases. Here's an example of a legal case that was won based on the lack of an Oxford comma.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/oxford-comma-maine.html

Moral of the story, better be safe than sorry. It may be worth the .001¢ to print the comma.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 
Yooo said:
I guess it does not matter until it costs you $5 million. Many times the Oxford comma is used to write out a list and it becomes important in a few cases. Here's an example of a legal case that was won based on the lack of an Oxford comma.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/oxford-comma-maine.html

Moral of the story, better be safe than sorry. It may be worth the .001¢ to print the comma.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Yes, this is a great example. The wording was for the packing only (that applied to those distribution items). Now it has been revised to include both packing and distribution (though with a semicolon instead of a comma).

Lesson learned, the comma IS necessary.
 
tiny said:
You mean "which" and "that"? I remember that annoying paperclip in Word trying to teach me the difference! Grr!

According to Clippy, when used as to clarify a statement (as opposed to asking a question), "which" is followed by a supplemental clause, while "that" is followed by a necessary one. And you need to use a comma before "which", but not "that".

So, "the dog that farted" refers specifically the farting dog; whereas "the dog, which farted" refers to the dog... which (inconsequentially) farted.

You're absolutely right, something I remembered this morning when I was a little more awake. I think a lot of authors no longer bother to use the right form as it's too much trouble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top