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

Serial comma - yes or no?

2»

Comments

  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited November 2009
    In Australia, the second option is generally preferred, except where there would be ambiguity.
    How does 1 lead to conflicts? I would think that 2 would.
    Use of the serial comma can introduce ambiguity. An example would be a book dedication reading:
    To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God
    [...]
    Without a serial comma this would read:
    To my mother, Ayn Rand and God
    This is only ambiguous if it can be interpreted as: "To my mother, who is both Ayn Rand and God".
    As for the issue of logically grouping tigers and bears in #2, I've never read it that way. If the logical grouping of tigers and bears were the last element of the list, it would have to be preceded by "and". In this case, it is not, and so that interpretation fails. If you did want to logically group tigers and bears, you would use the following:
    Lions, and tigers and bears.
    Indeed, a comma is used here to remove ambiguity, but I do not see #2 as ambiguous.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    As a fellow I know is fond of saying: "The Oxford comma is what separates us from the animals."

    I am inclined to agree.
  • Loganator456Loganator456
    #1, I can't let myself even read #2, let alone write it.
  • LyddiLyddi
    Which do you prefer:
    1) Lions, tigers, and bears.
    Lions :)
  • MrRobotoMrRoboto
    edited November 2009
    I'm really not ashamed to admit that I honestly didn't know you were supposed to use a comma like that. I've always seen it written "a, b and c". Also in Spanish it's always "a,b y c", not "a, b, y c".
    Post edited by MrRoboto on
  • NerissaNerissa
    I have always used number 1, I didn't know that we had options.
  • JasonJason
    Those who prefer option 2 are merely lazy, in my experience. A single extra keystroke is not too high a price for clarity.
  • La Petit MortLa Petit Mort
    Which do you prefer:
    1) Lions, tigers, and bears.
    Lions :)
    If it's a grizzly, I'll take bears.
  • VhdbloodVhdblood
    edited November 2009
    If you did want to logically group tigers and bears, you would use the following:
    Lions, and tigers and bears.
    I was probably taught wrong, but that's not the way I was taught? If you're writing a list and you have one thing that contains an "and", you don't also put an "and" before it.

    Lions, zebras, tigers and bears, sheep, and fish.
    Lions, tigers and bears.

    To be honest though, a lot of grammar laws are just stupid.

    Edit: Also, you would use an "and" if it was a proper noun.

    Cinderella, Titanic, and The Beauty and the Beast.
    Post edited by Vhdblood on
  • FunfetusFunfetus
    Lions, zebras, tigers and bears, sheep, and fish.
    Lions, tigers and bears.
    I'd go with "lions, and a tiger-bear combo".
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    Ummm, not the way I was taught? If you're writing a list and you have one thing that contains an "and", you don't also put an "and" before it.
    Well, I think that it makes a lot more sense for the last element of a list to always be preceded by "and".

    e.g. from the Chicago Manual of Style, "The meal consisted of soup, salad, and macaroni and cheese."
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited November 2009
    Lions, zebras, tigers and bears, sheep, and fish.
    Lions, tigers and bears.
    I'd go with "lions, and a tiger-bear combo".
    Lions, and the unholy tiger-bear alliance.

    EDIT: Comma here, because I wanted to explicitly highlight the gravity of the situation with a pause. In any case, it's not a serial comma because it is a list of two items.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
Sign In or Register to comment.