Talk:Serial comma

Miscellaneous

Is this comma used in a list consisting of only two entities?

No. —Steven G. Johnson 19:05, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the ambiguity that serial commas introduce into the example of the bottom paragraph. It would appear that Miss Roberts was considered for three roles, and I don't readily see an alternative interpretation. Maybe I'm just being oblivious? Is there a better example to use? Xanzzibar 02:19, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think the ambiguity is in using the commas to parenthetize "David's mother", implying Marjorie was David's mother. In any case, one shouldn't probably use commas to do that... Dysprosia 02:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The ambiguity is not removed if one omits the serial comma, unless serial commas are forbidden. As long as they are optional, the ambiguity in this counterexample remains. — Jeff Q 02:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this is very well-written and clear encyclopedia article. Props to those who did the work. jengod 01:10, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Inadequate anti-serial-comma arguments

I know folks are trying to create good examples, and I don't have a better one offhand, but

We brought Betty, a cow, and a piano.

is not an example of ambiguity in serial comma use. It's simply bad grammar to put a comma after "Betty" in this sentence. There are not three parallel items that require some use of commas — there are only two. "Betty" is not one of the items being brought. There should be no commas in this sentence, regardless of serial comma practice. I'm sure there are good examples of serial comma ambiguity, but this isn't one. — Jeff Q 13:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me. I just re-read the sentence, and realized that I was thinking of an interpretation that the author apparently did not consider. I think it's because the sentence seems rather artificial. When I saw the words:

we brought Betty a cow and a piano

I was first inclined to read this as bringing a cow and a piano to Betty, not with Betty, and simply assumed the comma after "Betty" was a typographical error, the like of which I see dozen of times every single day, even from supposedly-respectable news organizations. But the author of this example apparently meant it to be read ambiguously as one of the two following:

we brought Betty, who is a cow, and a piano
we brought Betty and a cow and a piano

Yes--since we were discussing the last comma in a series. But I can understand the confusion.

that would be resolved if the original sentence omitted the last comma, which would be a serial comma in the last interpretation. Technically, the author's point is correct, but gets lost in the confusion over an unintended (and I think more likely expected) meaning. I think we still need a better example. — Jeff Q 14:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Confusion should be precluded with:

They went to Oregon with Betty, a cow, and a piano.

Thanks for the feedback.--NathanHawking 17:53, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

How would people feel about this example? "I saw Ann, my sister, and Joe." Factitious 16:49, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

I like the humor in mistaking a lady for a cow--like Rand and God for one's parents. I think I've solved the problem. --NathanHawking 17:53, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

I think Factitious's example seems more ambiguous (in that one is more likely to see a sister who may or may not be named Ann than to go to Oregon with a cow that may or may not be named Betty), and is thus more likely to benefit from serial comma absence. But I have to admit, I also like NathanHawking's example's humor and symmetry with the classic Rand-and-God example. However, my earlier error also made me more conscious of how likely one is to mistake the presence or absence of punctuation as an error by sloppy writers and not as an intentional policy. In the past week, I've corrected at least two Wikipedia article instances of parenthetical-phrase comma use where the second comma was omitted (which is never correct), making it look like an absent serial comma for a list. I'm afraid that, if I saw either example in use without a serial comma, I would not feel that I knew the intended meaning without context. I don't see a direct solution to this; it's just an observation. — Jeff Q 04:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Google "cow named Betty". 18 hits for web. "Cow betty" gives 143 hits. Lots of cows named Betty. Dogs named Fred, too.--NathanHawking 10:00, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Google "sister named Ann" — 277 hits. "Sister ann" gives about 24,700. Far more sisters named Ann. But I still like your example. ☺ By the way, please don't break up my comments, even with blue highlighting. Besides thwarting the admittedly limited Wiki markup, interspersed comments work well in dialogs, but not when three or more parties are involved, especially on a discussion page that new people may be trying to follow months or even years from now. — Jeff Q 14:56, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removal of added section

I removed the following:

But the ambiguity of whether "a cow" was a parenthetic expression or a separate member of a list would also arise in speech, unless the speaker used careful intonation. Special punctuation can be used to mimic the necessary careful intonations. For one meaning:

They went to Oregon with Betty; a cow; and a piano.

For the other, one of:

They went to Oregon with Betty (a cow) and a piano.

They went to Oregon with Betty – a cow – and a piano.

Consider: "They went to Oregon with Betty, a housekeeper, and a maidservant."

Reasons as follows:

Commas aren't used in speech, and this article is about commas. Disambiguation by intonation is interesting, but doesn't belong in an article about punctuation.
The recommended use of semicolons, so far as I can tell, is non-standard.
The example sentence at the end essentially repeats the Betty-cow-piano example.

--NathanHawking 20:55, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

I rethought the contributors point about the last sentence and the disambiguation examples, and extracted that to create a final section, showing alternatives to serial commas. --NathanHawking 21:26, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Inaccurate

All of the commas in a series, not just the optional one before the conjunction, are serial commas. The one just before the conjunction is an Oxford comma. Shorne 15:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this is one of those cases where usage has triumphed over logic in language. The vast majority of references use "the serial comma" to refer only to the last comma:

"This last comma—the one between the word "and" and the preceding word—is often called the serial comma or the Oxford comma." [1]

"When you are writing about a series of things, the serial comma is necessary before the final 'and.'" [2]

"I stoutly defend the use of the serial comma..." [3]

"Without the serial comma, the example could have numerous meanings." [4]

"Serial Comma (also known as the Oxford or Harvard Comma): Even without the final (serial) comma, the sentence is grammatically correct." [5]

In a half-dozen articles I found one exception:

"Except for journalists, all American authorities say to use the final serial comma:" [6]

I don't know if that's enough to justify rewriting the introduction. If you can cite a few more references which chew this bone, though, perhaps clarification would be in order. --NathanHawking 23:18, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Page move

Shorne's right. Oxford comma is the proper name for the last comma in the list - not serial comma. We should move the article to "Oxford comma". jguk 21:29, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't care what the page is called, assuming proper redirects, but please don't be prescriptive about what is the "proper" name. Wikipedia should merely accurately describe the existing usage(s). —Steven G. Johnson 22:33, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I see someone has been bold and moved this page to Oxford comma despite no consensus on the preference of "Oxford comma" over "serial comma". I see also that the first paragraph was rephrased to fit the new title. However, the entire remainder of the article uses "serial comma" to mean the Oxford comma. I agree that "serial comma" is ambiguous, as it is occasionally (and more logically) used in sense of "one in a series of commas in a list", but this does not justify ignoring its normal and accepted use in the other sense. At the very least, the text should reflect the dual use of the term and be consistent in how it discusses the article subject. We can't ignore the preponderance of the "last comma" use in a variety of style guides, just because the English language doesn't conform to prescriptive logic. Frankly, I'd prefer to move this article back to Serial comma. If the bold editor(s) would prefer this not be done, I urge them to fix the current mess. — Jeff Q 08:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No evidence at all has been provided to support the claim that the term Oxford comma is somehow more proper, nothing to counter the evidence provided by NathanHawking. To add to this evidence: The Cambridge Guide to English Usage has a redirect to "comma section 3 for serial comma but no redirect for the term Oxford comma. The article comma calls it "(the so called serial comma or series comma) and from that point onward calls it the serial comma. The term Oxford comma does not appear in the article at all. (Does Cambridge hate Oxford that badly?) However in both the Burchfield and the Allen Fowler, in the article comma, this comma is identified as "the so-called 'Oxford comma')" once and not other special name is there given, neither serial comma or series comma. But the quotation marks placed around Oxford comma here suggests an attempt to disavow that is an official or proper name for this comma usage. In the Buchfield Fowler the term appears twice, both times within single quotation marks. This is the only place where I have found Oxford comma given primary usage. For many technical terms there is no single proper name, only competing descriptive names. In such cases, the more common one is preferred in Wikipedia.

If an older usage can be documented, then the information should be added to the article and a note added to the lead paragraph indicating the contemporary usage derives from older usage in which the term applied to any comma in a list. I have found cases of the phrase final serial comma, but this might mean either the last of a number of serial commas or the last comma which is the special serial comma. Jallan 20:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Being bold is what Wikipedia's about. I wish more people were bolder:) I haven't had time to research this thoroughly, but "Oxford comma" is by far the more interesting way to refer to it. I must say, however, that looking at an internet search of it, I was surprised at the pure venom expressed by those supporting its use against those who do not adopt it. As Burchfield, quite correctly, reports, both using the Oxford comma and not using the Oxford comma are accepted usage now (although Burchfield does note his personal preference of using the Oxford comma). jguk 23:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS I wouldn't mind Oxford, they give degrees to anyone these days :)

Being bold is good, but it does not release one either from being accurate or from the consequences of one's boldness. And there are now three separate issues being discussed in this section titled Inaccurate:

The article title change to Oxford comma, based on logic but not on typical practice.
The failure to update more than the introductory paragraph of the article to accomodate the change.
The actual use or avoidance of the "Oxford comma".

The second has been resolved. The third is irrelevant to this discussion. Let's please focus on the specific "Oxford comma" vs. "serial comma" issue here.

As far as that goes, whether "Oxford comma" is a more "interesting" label is hardly relevant. The important thing is to label it accurately. From that point of view, both "Oxford" and "Harvard" are more logical, but the evidence cited thus far strongly suggests these latter terms are not the most common practice. However, most of that evidence appears to be coming from folks who prefer "serial comma", which makes sense but could be considered selective research. Can someone quote any unequivocating authoritative source for favoring either "Oxford comma" or "Harvard comma"? If not, this article should be returned to its former title. — Jeff Q 02:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Burchfield prefers the term in Fowler. Also, this google test [7] [8] shows just under a 2:1 preference for "Oxford comma". jguk 07:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Searching outside of just UK sites (where one would expect a higher bias toward the Oxford phrasing) shows a preference for serial comma, however (5,810:5,500). The Concise OED redirects the reader to serial comma from Oxford comma, as well. --Xanzzibar 08:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks like your search showed no clear usage preference (even though one would expect an American bias as there are disproportionately more American websites). jguk 08:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Burchfield's a bit attainted by his use of the phrase "so-called 'Oxford comma'", according to Jallan. On the other hand, websites can be useful for rough ideas, but are hardly authoritative, even when the evidence strongly supports one side. (And I share jguk's suspicion about American bias in overall website content.) Surely there are other British style guides that can shed more light on this debate, on way or another? I'd dig 'em up myself, but my local libraries (not surprisingly, in Virginia) have little in the way of British materials. — Jeff Q 14:56, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In making my preceding comment, I overlooked Xanzzibar's explicit search of UK sites. Unless jguk wishes to make the argument that most UK websites are run by expatriate Americans, even a slight favoring of "serial comma" over the homegrown "Oxford comma" significantly undermines the argument for the latter. But I maintain that printed British style guides' recommendations would be more meaningful. — Jeff Q 07:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, no. I searched Google at large, which showed the 5% preference for "serial" over "Oxford." Maurreen's search is even more revealing, though. And, as I mentioned above, the OED uses "serial comma" as its main entry, not "Oxford comma," which I think says something.

To get a truly scientific answer about what is most common would probably take more effort than the question is worth. But here's more Google searches:

Using all three words ("comma", "oxford", and "serial") gives 5,290 hits.
Using "comma", "oxford", and "-serial" gives 116,000 hits.
Using "comma", "serial", and "-oxford" gives 202,000 hits.

Further, the expression "serial comma" can be more easily understood by anyone unfamiliar with the expression "Oxford comma" than the reverse. Maurreen 08:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV

Changing the article from "Serial comma" to "Oxford comma" is POV. I'm adding the tag. Maurreen 06:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But what a wonderful article name is "Oxford comma", and to have it tagged makes it all the more intriguing! Thincat 16:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ho-hum. I find the term "serial comma" to be highly mis-leading as a term for the description of what this article about; "ante-posterior comma" would be significantly better. Naming it "serial comma" is, indeed, IMO, somewhat POV in and of itself.

James F. (talk) 16:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since the comma is actually termed "Oxford comma", and the common alternative names are also mentioned in the article, are there any objections to removing the POV notice? jguk 20:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No objections. All of the names appear pretty well known. We just have to pick one. Oxford is as good as any other. DJ Clayworth 20:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I object. Let's wait and see if anyone else does also. I also disagree that all the terms are well known. Maurreen 21:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And what is the justification for renaming the article? Maurreen 21:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also object. Jguk's assertion implies that "Oxford comma" is the official name, and the others mere alternatives. Despite repeated requests for proof of such a claim, he has failed to provide compelling evidence. Others have provided substantive evidence that "serial comma", under which this article was originally titled, is the better-known name. So far, there is more reason to change it back than either to keep it or to remove the POV tag. — Jeff Q 08:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jeff Q, I never said it was an official - as with most names of things, there's nothing official about it:) I did say it was actually called the Oxford comma, which it is. It is also actually called Harvard comma and serial comma by some, as the article notes. I'm not sure what this has got to do with a POV tag though. We don't usually put POV tags on something because they are named using the most common British term, rather than the most common American one. jguk 09:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)