Print

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

[Tack]

So I have recently gotten in an argument with a friend and hoped to gather the other grammar nazis to help browbeat me into accepting I'm wrong.
(Specifically regarding title, commas and lists.)

We all know how bad it can go when there's no commas in a list:
"Barack Obama invited the strippers, Bush, and Kennedy."
VS
"Barack Obama invited the strippers Bush and Kennedy."

But I personally have some weird hankering the omit the last comma of a list:
"Barack Obama invited the strippers, Bush and Kennedy."

I don't like putting a comma before "and".
Is that normal? Or more importantly, Right?

[Levi]

Yes.  You leave out the last comma.

"Barack Obama invited the strippers, Bush and Kennedy." is how I've always done it.

Edit:  Looks like both are technically correct?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma

[anzki4]

"Barack Obama invited the strippers, Bush, and Kennedy."

That last comma before "and" is Oxford comma. It's grammatically correct, but so is leaving it out. Just personal preference. Not much else to it.

[RedKing]

That would be the infamous Oxford Comma.

There's no consenus answer, but that's only because our society is overrun by deviants, degenerates, and Philistines.

oxford comma 4 lyfe



@Levi: And I would read that as "the strippers were named Bush and Kennedy".

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Even better examples. (click to show/hide)

[IronyOwl]

oxford comma 4 lyfe

word

[Bauglir]

This seems relevant.

I would include the final comma in this case, because, without it, the list can't be distinguished from a clause. That is, it's impossible to tell whether you're explaining that the particular strippers in question are Bush and Kennedy, or whether non-strippers Bush and Kennedy were invited along with strippers. That's only because your first noun happens to be a plural one that the others could be part of - in most cases, that won't be an issue. In any case, it is optional, and often depends on the relevant style guides or your local customs. Both are usually more important than semantic ambiguity, which context often provides.

EDIT: I have been ninja'd.

EDIT: Clause is not the right word, apparently, but fuck if I know what is.

[Egan_BW]

Oxford comma in the one true god.

[Levi]

@Levi: And I would read that as "the strippers were named Bush and Kennedy".

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Even better examples. (click to show/hide)

Hmm... HMMM!    HMM 

Fine.   

[Shadowlord]

Totes optional, but I always include it for clarity~

[i2amroy]

Personally I use it all the time, but yeah, I'm totally fine with people leaving it out except in certain cases such as those mentioned earlier. For example I'd be fine with you leaving it out in this sentence:
"We invited Mable, Harvard, Lilly, and Susan" vs. "We invited Mable, Harvard, Lilly and Susan"
because it doesn't really provide any additional benefits (though IMO the consistency makes the sentence flow a bit better).
On the other hand in a sentence like this or the earlier ones:
"We invited the two swat members, Mable and Susan" vs. "We invited the two swat members, Mable, and Susan"
does have a significant interpretation difference that is solved by the addition of the oxford comma, because it designates that Mable and Susan are a continued part of the list rather than being an aside about the two swat members.

So yeah, if it solves ambiguity then I really think you should use it, and in cases where it doesn't make a difference then it's up to personal preference (though personally I prefer to just always use it for consistency instead of needing to use it sometimes and not use it others).

[Levi]

We should just make brackets acceptable to delimit scope.  Then I could do "Levi invited the strippers(Bush and Kennedy), the dancers(Obama and Nixon) and the clown."

[Bauglir]

i refuse to accept any proposals that have no utility but to reduce ambiguity

the same can always be accomplished through effective use of context and other language skills that are good to learn, and ambiguity presents many opportunities for humor that would be lost otherwise

[Flying Dice]

Yes.  You leave out the last comma.

"Barack Obama invited the strippers, Bush and Kennedy." is how I've always done it.

Edit:  Looks like both are technically correct?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma

This is the perfect example of why the Oxford comma is necessary and correct. The meaning of a sentence can change dramatically based on presence/absence and placement of commas.

"Barack Obama invited the strippers, Bush and Kennedy." parses as "Barack Obama invited the strippers, [who were named] Bush and Kennedy." I.e. he invited two strippers named Bush and Kennedy.

"Barack Obama invited the strippers, Bush, and Kennedy." parses as "Barack Obama invited the strippers, [as well as] Bush, [as well as] and Kennedy." I.e. he invited the strippers and also invited both Bush and Kennedy.

Commas matter. The Oxford comma's a good one, but there are other old lines about why it's so. Never help your uncle jack off a horse when you actually helped your uncle, Jack, off a horse.

[Shadowlord]

I don't think anyone has mentioned that I'd you prefer, you can clarify a sentence like that while still thumbing your nose at the Oxford comma: just switch the words around: "Barack Obama invited Bush, Kennedy and the strippers."

[Tack]

Yes, but a semicolon would be the grammatically correct thing there, wouldn't it?
"Barack Obama invited the strippers; Bush and Kennedy."

Or a regular colon I dunno I think I'm discrediting myself here:
"Barack Obama invited the strippers: Bush and Kennedy."

But I don't believe people omitting the Oxford comma are ever actually doing it for... 'Expoundative lists'. So how is it so commonly being misattributed?