Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SirQuiamus]

pls no roast oxfor commas

[Tack]

Shucks. I got shitposting in my thread.
Uh... Shoo?

[TheBiggerFish]

no
foot

;P

Yeah, that ought to do it.

[Cyroth]

Well, I guess it's a matter of this case:

Obama invited Bush, Kennedy and the strippers, and Stalin.

In that case, the use of the Oxford comma is forced (assuming Kennedy and the strippers is a group).

I think examples like that are the only reason to use the Oxford Comma that I could live with.
Though most situations similar to that you'd run into in real-life could probably be avoided by putting stuff in another order.

I don't think you'll into a list of several "x and y" names in a row. At least not as long as you aren't some kind of organizer dealing with cover bands of bad groups from the 80's.

Comma iz srs bsns dnt u kek at me m8.kthx

[Flying Dice]

Was that a shot at Johnny Thunders & the Heartbreakers? Educate thyself.

But anyways, as was mentioned previously, the Oxford comma is one example of the closest you get to a real rule in English grammar: punctuate as it sounds. If you speak the sentence and there's a natural pause there, it needs punctuation, likely a comma. It's one of those cases where of the two options one offers an advantage in clarity and efficacy--the primary purpose of language is to convey meaning, ergo we should speak and write in a manner which facilitates that. If one way of doing something makes it markedly less clear what is meant, why deliberately use it, other than sheer contrarianism?