›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Serial comma - yes or no?

KilarneyKilarney
edited November 2009 in Everything Else
Which do you prefer:
1) Lions, tigers, and bears.
2) Lions, tigers and bears.

I am partial to the serial comma, but I seem to be in the minority. I like how it is also called the Harvard comma. It also looks cleaner to me.
«1

Comments

  • GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
    edited November 2009
    #1 is what I use unless I intend the last two items to be included together specifically as part of a sub-group.
    Post edited by GreatTeacherMacRoss on
  • ErwinErwin
    I like my serial comas if only because I can have a moment to pause and smell the roses. I also like how clean it looks ;P
  • RymRym
    #1 is the only option, in my opinion. I've never seen the latter used much.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    I've never seen the latter used much.
    Really, I see it all the time. Though I too prefer #1.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    I see the latter all of the time.
  • CremlianCremlian
    1) Lions, tigers, and bears.
    2) Lions, tigers and bears.
    If you do number 2, it looks like your saying Lions and then together tigers and bears.
  • NuriNuri
    Serial comma always and forever, unless explicitly told otherwise by the publication you are writing for. It removes ambiguity in pretty much all cases, and my personal feeling is that it looks incredibly stupid and interrupts the flow of the sentence to leave it out in most cases. Of course, most legal writing seems to leave it out. >_<
  • RymRym
    I see the latter all of the time.
    I rarely see it, and I recall it being taught in school as being entirely disallowed.

    According to Wikipedia, "it is routinely used in American English." "Most college writing handbooks in the U.S. also advocate use of the serial comma." "The Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk and White's Elements of Style, most authorities on American English... recommend the use of the serial comma."

    In the article, only four American style guides disallow it, while eight require it. I'd consider it proper American English grammar at this point.
  • AprecheApreche
    I think we already had a thread about this, and #1 was the winner.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    I think we already had a thread about this, and #1 was the winner.
    Not that it is really important, but we did. However, it was a long time ago.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    At least the people here agree. This place truly is a grammatical sanctuary.
  • RymRym
    At least the people here agree. This place truly is a grammatical sanctuary.
    Full of intellectual powerhouses. A toast, gentlemen, to us!
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    I see the latter all of the time.
    Well, people are also wrong with alarming frequency. #1 all the way! I didn't even realize that #2 was an option.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    Full of intellectual powerhouses. A toast, gentlemen, to us!
    Cheers!
  • DisDis
    I think we already had a thread about this, and #1 was the winner.
    Did the first option win, not out of the voters' passion for the rigid enforcement of proper grammar, but to wash away the horrific image conjured into their minds from the lacking serial comma in "tigers and bears" implying that an alliance between tigers and bears - the most terrifying of all possible alliances that could be formed within the animal kingdom - might well be on the cards?

    I always use the first option, unless I want the two last items in the list to be grouped together as GreatTeacherMacRoss herself states. This is a rare occurrence though.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited November 2009
    I see the latter all of the time.
    Well, people are also wrong with alarming frequency. #1 all the way! I didn't even realize that #2 was an option.
    Nuri's right - you see it in legal crap all the time. You even see it in firm names, like "Rich Guy, Rich Guy's Son, Minority Rich Guy and Rich Old Woman, PSC".
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • theknoxinatortheknoxinator
    Like everyone else, I also exclusively use #1, but it feels like I see other people use #2 more often than not, and it irks me every time I see it. I remember that in my schooling, we were taught that #2 is totally acceptable if the list is limited to three items. Any more than three, and they would say use #1.
  • AtheriShadowAtheriShadow
    #2 was what they taught me early in school, but I adopted #1 exclusively later on as I saw it used more. It just looks better and seems to fit better with the way things are spoken.
  • zombie a gogozombie a gogo
    edited November 2009
    #2 was what they taught me early in school, but I adopted #1 exclusively later on as I saw it used more. It just looks better and seems to fit better with the way things are spoken.
    Agreed.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • VhdbloodVhdblood
    I was never taught anything other than #1. To be honest, I thought that #2 was always incorrect, but it seems I was wrong. Yay Alabama public schools!
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    Either is fine but 1 leads to conflicts in certain situations.
  • VhdbloodVhdblood
    Either is fine but 1 leads to conflicts in certain situations.
    How does 1 lead to conflicts? I would think that 2 would.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    Either is fine but 1 leads to conflicts in certain situations.
    How does 1 lead to conflicts? I would think that 2 would.
    Yeah, I meant two.
  • zombie a gogozombie a gogo
    Language and grammer evolve, so both are probably correct depending on who you ask.
  • SailSail
    #1 is the only option, in my opinion. I've never seen the latter used much.
    I agree that #1 is the only option, but I've seen a lot of people use the #2 way. My biggest problem with #2 is that it leaves room for ambiguity and could imply that you're treating the last two objects as a single item. For example:

    1. I brought a screwdriver, mallet and chisel, and saw to use for woodworking.
    2. I brought a screwdriver, mallet and chisel and saw to use for woodworking.

    To use method #2 would be to be inherently inconsistent with your writing, because there are many objects that are treated as a single unit and are joined by an "and". By leaving out the comma, you're leaving room for ambiguity and imprecision.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    To use method #2 would be to be inherently inconsistent with your writing, because there are many objects that are treated as a single unit and are joined by an "and". By leaving out the comma, you're leaving room for ambiguity and imprecision.
    It's like the difference between saying you had "chicken, peas, and carrots," and "chicken, peas and carrots." "Peas and carrots" is a different thing than "peas, and carrots."
  • FunfetusFunfetus
    While #1 definitely removes the chance of ambiguity, and is evidently the preferred usage, I have to say that it's a little ugly to me. I still use it, but it's ugly.
  • RymRym
    I have to say that it's a little ugly to me.
    I disagree. It's a much more elegant construction, and it better matches both the cadence of the speech itself and the logical grouping of the phrase.

    If you want ugly syntax, let's discuss the overuse of .... . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .
  • FunfetusFunfetus
    I disagree. It's a much more elegant construction, and it better matches both the cadence of the speech itself and the logical grouping of the phrase.

    If you want ugly syntax, let's discuss the overuse of .... . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .
    ...Morse code? Anyway, I don't know, man. It's just aesthetic. No accounting for taste.
  • AprecheApreche
    edited November 2009
    Eats, shoots, and leaves.
    Eats, shoots and leaves.
    Eats shoots and leaves.

    There's a reason someone made a book with that title.
    Post edited by Apreche on
Sign In or Register to comment.