Splitting dialogue

[Britva415]

Here's why serial commas are a good thing:

Serial comma version:

On the third day of my trip to Wyoming, I encountered my aunt, an idiot, and a cow.

Non serial comma version:

On the third day of my trip to Wyoming, I encountered my aunt, an idiot and a cow.



The differences in meaning are non-trivial.

It's equally easy to provide examples where the "extra" comma is the one that fucks up the meaning. And that's why saying one or the other is always the "good thing," as if it were somehow more than a mere preference, is just indefensible.

 

[SimonDoom]

It's equally easy to provide examples where the "extra" comma is the one that fucks up the meaning. And that's why saying one or the other is always the "good thing," as if it were somehow more than a mere preference, is just indefensible.

Can you give examples? Of the top of my head, I can't think of examples where the use of the comma creates greater confusion. I can think of examples where it doesn't make much difference, but I think there are far more examples of its absence causing confusion than its presence causing confusion.

 

[Voboy]

Sounds reasonable. If it were unspoken, you would probably have started a new paragraph.

But, to help the ignorami, you could mark the change with something like:

She hesitated for a moment

It's fine. I already submitted, meaning it's done. Set in stone.

I don't mind using this construction where it's appropriate, and I used it appropriately. I think the context makes it very clear what I'm doing in that passage.

 

[Britva415]

Can you give examples? Of the top of my head, I can't think of examples where the use of the comma creates greater confusion.

Along the lines of "eats, shoots, and leaves," there are things like "He got his favorite birthday treat, cake, and ice cream." That isn't "confusion," it's just literally wrong. You, being a smart guy, might argue that these aren't lists of three-or-more items and so it aren't cases of Oxford-comma at all, but, it is an example of a "rule" people mistakenly apply where it doesn't apply just because it has been drilled into them. A hypercorrection, let's call it. If the rule weren't thumped so hard and people were permitted to understand that it's a matter of style and not of "correctness," they wouldn't hypercorrect.

Then we have lists - are these two people or four? "At his bachelor party were two strippers, Dave, and Steve-O." Are Dave and Steve-O the strippers or his invited buddies?

"Jimmy was driving his boss, Mr. O'Malley, and Jack Jameson when..." Are there three people or four in the car? Leaving that comma out would be totally unambiguous. If there were really only three, Jack should be first and "and" should be before "boss" and "O'Malley." And there STILL wouldn't be an "oxford" comma.

I can think of examples where it doesn't make much difference

Yes, sure.

but I think there are far more examples of its absence causing confusion than its presence causing confusion.

I completely agree with that, but "confusion" isn't the only objection. It depends on the sentence, but, without the comma, ambiguity is the most common problem. WITH an unnecessary comma in the "oxford" position, the sentence could be getting hypercorrected until it's factually wrong - or it could be introducing ambiguity. Either of those could result, depending on the sentence.

Ambiguity is (A) the worst that can happen without the Oxford comma, and, (B) the ambiguity is more likely to get noticed by the author and the extra comma added when necessary for clarity if the person is following the "no Oxford comma" style. But if they're following (hyper-following) the Oxford-comma style, the worst that can happen is worse than ambiguity.

 

[SimonDoom]

Along the lines of "eats, shoots, and leaves," there are things like "He got his favorite birthday treat, cake, and ice cream." That isn't "confusion," it's just literally wrong. You, being a smart guy, might argue that these aren't lists of three-or-more items and so it aren't cases of Oxford-comma at all, but, it is an example of a "rule" people mistakenly apply where it doesn't apply just because it has been drilled into them. A hypercorrection, let's call it. If the rule weren't thumped so hard and people were permitted to understand that it's a matter of style and not of "correctness," they wouldn't hypercorrect.

Then we have lists - are these two people or four? "At his bachelor party were two strippers, Dave, and Steve-O." Are Dave and Steve-O the strippers or his invited buddies?

"Jimmy was driving his boss, Mr. O'Malley, and Jack Jameson when..." Are there three people or four in the car? Leaving that comma out would be totally unambiguous. If there were really only three, Jack should be first and "and" should be before "boss" and "O'Malley." And there STILL wouldn't be an "oxford" comma.



Yes, sure.


I completely agree with that, but "confusion" isn't the only objection. It depends on the sentence, but, without the comma, ambiguity is the most common problem. WITH an unnecessary comma in the "oxford" position, the sentence could be getting hypercorrected until it's factually wrong - or it could be introducing ambiguity. Either of those could result, depending on the sentence.

Ambiguity is (A) the worst that can happen without the Oxford comma, and, (B) the ambiguity is more likely to get noticed by the author and the extra comma added when necessary for clarity if the person is following the "no Oxford comma" style. But if they're following (hyper-following) the Oxford-comma style, the worst that can happen is worse than ambiguity.

I agree with the examples you've given, although, as you note, none of these are really examples of series of three or more items. They're appositives. So the concern seems to be that we shouldn't talk too strongly about it being a "rule" out of the risk that it will be applied mistakenly and overbroadly. I see the point, although I'm not sure that's a strong enough reason not to say that, generally speaking, we SHOULD use the serial comma in cases where it would apply, meaning cases where there is a series of three or more items.

(1) "I went to the party with my parents, Mark, and Jane." is correct where I am going to the party with my parents, and with Mark, and with Jane.

(2) "I went to the party with my parents, Mark and Jane" is correct where my parents are named Mark and Jane. But since it's not a series it's clear (to a writer who is paying attention) that a serial comma could not be appropraite.


I can't think of any examples of the first kind of sentence where you WOULDN'T want to use the serial comma, or where it would cause confusion.

 

[Britva415]

I can't think of any examples of the first kind of sentence where you WOULDN'T want to use the serial comma, or where it would cause confusion.

"I went to the party with Dickie, Mark and Jane."

Nobody's going to think that Dickie is those two people.

So the concern seems to be that we shouldn't talk too strongly about it being a "rule" out of the risk that it will be applied mistakenly and overbroadly. I see the point, although I'm not sure that's a strong enough reason not to say

that, generally speaking, we SHOULD use the serial comma in cases where it would apply, meaning cases where there is a series of three or more items.

There's no strong reason to say that we should OR that we shouldn't, except as a matter of style, which is perfectly arbitrary. One style is not better than the other - but people on the Oxford style "side" (as if there were sides, instead of just taste) tend to be really vigorous about insisting that it is and they're right.

THAT is a strong enough reason to go ahead and use the other style! Attitude wise, it's like me saying "well then I'm gonna call it .gaypeg" when someone insists that .gif is ".jiff."

 

[SimonDoom]

"I went to the party with Dickie, Mark and Jane."

Nobody's going to think that Dickie is those two people.



There's no strong reason to say that we should OR that we shouldn't, except as a matter of style, which is perfectly arbitrary. One style is not better than the other - but people on the Oxford style "side" (as if there were sides, instead of just taste) tend to be really vigorous about insisting that it is and they're right.

THAT is a strong enough reason to go ahead and use the other style! Attitude wise, it's like me saying "well then I'm gonna call it .gaypeg" when someone insists that .gif is ".jiff."

I am well aware that we're wandering into extremely OCD grammar territory here, but I'll play just a bit longer. Your example is a good one, but it's an example of how the sentence is equally clear with or without the serial comma. I agree there are many such cases.

But to adopt your logic, we should adopt a "rule" that minimizes the risk of applying the rule in cases where it doesn't apply and will cause confusion, and I'd say that to do that the better general rule is to use the serial comma in all cases where it COULD apply. Your example is such a case. Uniformity decreases the total risk of actual error, I think (although we'd both be speculating somewhat about that).

I would modify the general "rule" as follows:

1. Use the serial comma in the case of real series of three or more things.
2. Take care to avoid using the comma where there is an appositive or similar construction, rather than a series, and a comma would cause confusion.

I still believe that meaning and clarity are enhanced, generally, by adopting 1 as a general rule as long we allow 2 as a caveat. So, I like the rule, but I can't get worked up about not using it in the example you gave above.

I think I've reached my OCD limits on the issue for the evening, so if you have further thoughts on the matter I'll probably just raise my glass and say "Cheers to different points of view."

 

[Britva415]

to adopt your logic, we should adopt a "rule" that minimizes the risk of applying the rule in cases where it doesn't apply and will cause confusion

That's not what I believe follows from my logic. What I believe follows from my logic is that we shouldn't cause people to believe that styles are "rules" at all.

 

[SimonDoom]

That's not what I believe follows from my logic. What I believe follows from my logic is that we shouldn't cause people to believe that styles are "rules" at all.

Maybe I'll change my mind later, but for the moment I'm going to stay true to my last post and simply say, "Cheers." I see your point but don't quite agree with it, but there's a point in a debate of diminishing return, and another sip of bourbon looks more appealing.

 

[XerXesXu]

"I went to the party with Dickie, Mark and Jane."

Nobody's going to think that Dickie is those two people.



There's no strong reason to say that we should OR that we shouldn't, except as a matter of style, which is perfectly arbitrary. One style is not better than the other - but people on the Oxford style "side" (as if there were sides, instead of just taste) tend to be really vigorous about insisting that it is and they're right.

THAT is a strong enough reason to go ahead and use the other style! Attitude wise, it's like me saying "well then I'm gonna call it .gaypeg" when someone insists that .gif is ".jiff."

Punctuate it, as you would say it, down the pub. Your 'style' will be constrained by grammar, thus correct. It may be ambiguous, but it will be correct. If you need to resolve an ambiguity in your writing, resolve it.