The Oxford comma is the comma that precedes the conjunction before the final item in a list of three or more items. It can clear up confusion.
Thanks Karree
+22-1+22-1|
|
|||
|
|
The Oxford Comma+22-15 comments to The Oxford CommaADVERTISEMENTS |
|
|
|
Copyright © 2013 Bits and Pieces - All Rights Reserved |
|||
Yes, It absolutely CAN clear up confusion, but it’s not always necessary, and like many grammar rules in the English language, there isn’t a clear consensus on whether the comma before a conjunction in a list is absolutely or always necessary. But, yes, it can clear up confusion, and I would say in some cases, it is a must.
On a lighter note, a comma and period walked into a bar, and by the end of the evening, they were a semi-colon.
Confusion might be avoided by listing singular items first, thus you would have “We invited JFK, Stalin and the strippers”.
Richard made my point before I could…
Then a again, missing an “m” in comma…
Eh, guys, many of y’all are too yung ta remember. Back in middle school – let’s say 40 yars ago – the ‘Merican grammarians had a big meetin’. And, here in ‘Merica, decided that the AMERICAN English language had no “implied punctuation.” So “a, b, and c” meant all three. But “a, b and c” meant “a”. Then “b and c”. It is meant to be read as punctuated. If that’s what the author/editor intended us to read, then that’s what we should read. As clumsy and meaningless as it is.
Of course, a number (most) newspaper and many magazine editors at the time declared “I learned to punctuate in 1947 and by [golly] that’s the way I’m gonna punctuate.” Thus the only reason for the continuing incorrect usage.
Read it out loud. “b and c” is intended to be read at the same speed as “Congress declared that b and c are no longer legal”. a, (pause) b and c (“b and c” read at the same tempo that the former sentences were, ignoring the former comma. Silly. And being old fashioned, it is still incorrect.
Chris