I only recently found out that the Harvard comma is also known as the Oxford comma.
If two of the most prestigious universities in the English speaking world say we should do it, why don’t we just do it?
The Rev Dodgson said:
I only recently found out that the Harvard comma is also known as the Oxford comma.If two of the most prestigious universities in the English speaking world say we should do it, why don’t we just do it?
It matters nil whether it is used or not.
The Rev Dodgson said:
I only recently found out that the Harvard comma is also known as the Oxford comma.If two of the most prestigious universities in the English speaking world say we should do it, why don’t we just do it?
Some of us just do.
I had to look it up. I’d never heard of it. Apparently I don’t use them. But then I learnt to type on a typewriter and I put three spaces after full stops and colons, because it’s in my muscle memory. So what would I know. (I see on the net it was 2 spaces after a full stop, but I’m certain I learnt 3 from the typing textbook. Which I haven’t still got, so can’t check. I learnt to type in the 1970s)
buffy said:
I had to look it up. I’d never heard of it. Apparently I don’t use them. But then I learnt to type on a typewriter and I put three spaces after full stops and colons, because it’s in my muscle memory. So what would I know. (I see on the net it was 2 spaces after a full stop, but I’m certain I learnt 3 from the typing textbook. Which I haven’t still got, so can’t check. I learnt to type in the 1970s)
It was certainly 2 spaces after a full stop, exclamation mark, question mark, colon and semicolon. I went to typing school in 1975. I still do that.
On my keyboard, if I do a double space, it automatically puts in a full stop.
I also use Oxford commas all the time.
buffy said:
I had to look it up. I’d never heard of it. Apparently I don’t use them. But then I learnt to type on a typewriter and I put three spaces after full stops and colons, because it’s in my muscle memory. So what would I know. (I see on the net it was 2 spaces after a full stop, but I’m certain I learnt 3 from the typing textbook. Which I haven’t still got, so can’t check. I learnt to type in the 1970s)
I was taught two.
Divine Angel said:
On my keyboard, if I do a double space, it automatically puts in a full stop.I also use Oxford commas all the time.
Well I’m glad we all follow the logical procedure.
Other than buffy, obviously :)
Rule 303 said:
buffy said:
I had to look it up. I’d never heard of it. Apparently I don’t use them. But then I learnt to type on a typewriter and I put three spaces after full stops and colons, because it’s in my muscle memory. So what would I know. (I see on the net it was 2 spaces after a full stop, but I’m certain I learnt 3 from the typing textbook. Which I haven’t still got, so can’t check. I learnt to type in the 1970s)
I was taught two.
I too, am a two man too.
ADFP 101 Service writing has two.
Woodie said:
Rule 303 said:
buffy said:
I had to look it up. I’d never heard of it. Apparently I don’t use them. But then I learnt to type on a typewriter and I put three spaces after full stops and colons, because it’s in my muscle memory. So what would I know. (I see on the net it was 2 spaces after a full stop, but I’m certain I learnt 3 from the typing textbook. Which I haven’t still got, so can’t check. I learnt to type in the 1970s)
I was taught two.
I too, am a two man too.
LOL
TMI
Rule 303 said:
buffy said:
I had to look it up. I’d never heard of it. Apparently I don’t use them. But then I learnt to type on a typewriter and I put three spaces after full stops and colons, because it’s in my muscle memory. So what would I know. (I see on the net it was 2 spaces after a full stop, but I’m certain I learnt 3 from the typing textbook. Which I haven’t still got, so can’t check. I learnt to type in the 1970s)
I was taught two.
Mmm, I’ve just searched out the book “Australian High School Typing” and you are right. Someone somewhere fixed 3. It’s 2 after a full stop and a colon.
I was wrong. (For a very long time!)
The Rev Dodgson said:
I only recently found out that the Harvard comma is also known as the Oxford comma.If two of the most prestigious universities in the English speaking world say we should do it, why don’t we just do it?
They don’t say we should do it. Those institutions per se have no opinion on this, which is a matter of style.
The Oxford University Press and Harvard University Press chose this as their house style.
For mine, I use the serial comma in cases where failing to do so will cause ambiguity or misunderstanding. There are cases where using the serial comma will cause ambiguity or misunderstanding.
dv said:
For mine, I use the serial comma in cases where failing to do so will cause ambiguity or misunderstanding.
I thought that was the point.
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
I only recently found out that the Harvard comma is also known as the Oxford comma.If two of the most prestigious universities in the English speaking world say we should do it, why don’t we just do it?
They don’t say we should do it. Those institutions per se have no opinion on this, which is a matter of style.
The Oxford University Press and Harvard University Press chose this as their house style.
For mine, I use the serial comma in cases where failing to do so will cause ambiguity or misunderstanding. There are cases where using the serial comma will cause ambiguity or misunderstanding.
I confess that I haven’t actually read what the professors of Oxford and Harvard have to say on the matter, but my understanding was that there should be a comma before the last item on the list, so if the last item is “x and y” there is no comma after the and, but if the last item is “y” there is.
Did you have some other ambiguity in mind?
we use parentheses to reduce ambiguity or override precedence, and commas to separate arguments
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
I only recently found out that the Harvard comma is also known as the Oxford comma.If two of the most prestigious universities in the English speaking world say we should do it, why don’t we just do it?
They don’t say we should do it. Those institutions per se have no opinion on this, which is a matter of style.
The Oxford University Press and Harvard University Press chose this as their house style.
For mine, I use the serial comma in cases where failing to do so will cause ambiguity or misunderstanding. There are cases where using the serial comma will cause ambiguity or misunderstanding.
I confess that I haven’t actually read what the professors of Oxford and Harvard have to say on the matter, but my understanding was that there should be a comma before the last item on the list, so if the last item is “x and y” there is no comma after the and, but if the last item is “y” there is.
Did you have some other ambiguity in mind?
I don’t quite understand your question so instead I’ll give examples where NOT using the serial comma causes ambiguity or misunderstanding, and also an example where using it causes ambiguity or misunderstanding.
Suppose I’m talking about a group of people that includes my children and also includes a couple of other people, for some reason.
Without the SC:
“I did this for my children, Jesus and Scott Morrison.”
Without the SC, there is some ambiguity here because it might be taken to imply that my children are called Jesus and Scott Morrison.
It’s probably better with the comma:
“I did this for my children, Jesus, and Scott Morrison.”
—-
A case where including the SC might cause misunderstanding would be:
“I did this for my mother, Julia Gillard, and Scott Morrison.”
Here, it might be taken that Julia Gillard is my mother. Leaving out the SF would remove this problem.
—-
Best to place commas in a way that, given the context and knowledge level of the reader, will reduce ambiguity, which will sometimes mean including the serial comma, and sometimes omitting it.
SCIENCE said:
we use parentheses to reduce ambiguity or override precedence, and commas to separate arguments
I do. Most style guides denigrate parentheses.
SCIENCE said:
we use parentheses to reduce ambiguity or override precedence, and commas to separate arguments
So do I when I’m talking to my computer.
Not so much for writing addressed to humans.
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:They don’t say we should do it. Those institutions per se have no opinion on this, which is a matter of style.
The Oxford University Press and Harvard University Press chose this as their house style.
For mine, I use the serial comma in cases where failing to do so will cause ambiguity or misunderstanding. There are cases where using the serial comma will cause ambiguity or misunderstanding.
I confess that I haven’t actually read what the professors of Oxford and Harvard have to say on the matter, but my understanding was that there should be a comma before the last item on the list, so if the last item is “x and y” there is no comma after the and, but if the last item is “y” there is.
Did you have some other ambiguity in mind?
I don’t quite understand your question so instead I’ll give examples where NOT using the serial comma causes ambiguity or misunderstanding, and also an example where using it causes ambiguity or misunderstanding.
Suppose I’m talking about a group of people that includes my children and also includes a couple of other people, for some reason.
Without the SC:
“I did this for my children, Jesus and Scott Morrison.”Without the SC, there is some ambiguity here because it might be taken to imply that my children are called Jesus and Scott Morrison.
It’s probably better with the comma:
“I did this for my children, Jesus, and Scott Morrison.”—-
A case where including the SC might cause misunderstanding would be:
“I did this for my mother, Julia Gillard, and Scott Morrison.”
Here, it might be taken that Julia Gillard is my mother. Leaving out the SF would remove this problem.
—-
Best to place commas in a way that, given the context and knowledge level of the reader, will reduce ambiguity, which will sometimes mean including the serial comma, and sometimes omitting it.
OK, I hadn’t considered the last case, but in that case I agree with SCIENCE, use brackets.
I’m sur ewe could come up with an example that would be ambiguous with or without the comma, but would be made clear with ().
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
we use parentheses to reduce ambiguity or override precedence, and commas to separate arguments
So do I when I’m talking to my computer.
Not so much for writing addressed to humans.
code is art and it is for the human reader too
dv said:
SCIENCE said:
we use parentheses to reduce ambiguity or override precedence, and commas to separate arguments
I do. Most style guides denigrate parentheses.
I use the serial comma when it removes ambiguity, and don’t use it when it would cause ambiguity.
Its use and lack thereof has caused all sorts of interesting complications. Roger Casement, for instance, was able to be convicted of and executed for treason because the court decided there should have been a comma where there wasn’t one (Casement wrote before his execution that he was “hanged on a comma.”)
A court in Maine decided in 2017 that the absence of a serial comma meant that truck drivers (who’d brought a case for unpaid overtime against Oakhurst Dairy) were entitled to be paid overtime, because they were excluded from the exception clause in the act.
the statute said:
personnel involved in “canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution” of certain goods were activities exempted from the general requirement of overtime pay.
The 50p coin minted in England to commemorate Brexit Day, and released on 31 Jan this year, includes the phrase, “Peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations”. This has been criticised for not having the serial comma.
btm said:
The 50p coin minted in England to commemorate Brexit Day, and released on 31 Jan this year, includes the phrase, “Peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations”. This has been criticised for not having the serial comma.
Because they couldn’t put “Let ‘em all go to hell, except Cave 76!” on it.
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
we use parentheses to reduce ambiguity or override precedence, and commas to separate arguments
So do I when I’m talking to my computer.
Not so much for writing addressed to humans.
code is art and it is for the human reader too
but yes you’re right, for human prose we nest braces more than parentheses
—
btm said:
Roger Casement, for instance, was able to be convicted of and executed for treason because the court decided there should have been a comma where there wasn’t one (Casement wrote before his execution that he was “hanged on a comma.”)A court in Maine decided in 2017 that the absence of a serial comma meant that truck drivers (who’d brought a case for unpaid overtime against Oakhurst Dairy) were entitled to be paid overtime, because they were excluded from the exception clause in the act.
good point, in legalese they go 1. further and have (a) hierarchy of sections/clauses to serve
Rule 303 said:
btm said:
The 50p coin minted in England to commemorate Brexit Day, and released on 31 Jan this year, includes the phrase, “Peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations”. This has been criticised for not having the serial comma.
Because they couldn’t put “Let ‘em all go to hell, except Cave 76!” on it.
Narrowly beat out this one:
dv said:
Rule 303 said:
btm said:
The 50p coin minted in England to commemorate Brexit Day, and released on 31 Jan this year, includes the phrase, “Peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations”. This has been criticised for not having the serial comma.
Because they couldn’t put “Let ‘em all go to hell, except Cave 76!” on it.
Narrowly beat out this one:
Ad be careful, there are Daleks swimming around in there.
The Oxford comma is fiercely defended by pedants. So I avoid it.
… unless it’s needed to avoid ambiguity. Such as before a clause.
In olden days, a comma was used to denote a pause in the flow of speech. I find that a good reason for rejecting the Oxford comma when there’s no pause in speech. So 1, 2 and 3. Not 1, 2, and 3.
But still use it to avoid ambiguity. Eg. The following have different meanings.
… Bill, Fred and Jack went swimming
Is different to:
… Bill, Fred, and Jack went swimming.
today I went to the store and bought eggs, tomato sauce, fish and chips, and Vegemite.
is that not how you use an Oxford comma? to denote the difference between grouping?
mollwollfumble said:
The Oxford comma is fiercely defended by pedants. So I avoid it.… unless it’s needed to avoid ambiguity. Such as before a clause.
In olden days, a comma was used to denote a pause in the flow of speech. I find that a good reason for rejecting the Oxford comma when there’s no pause in speech. So 1, 2 and 3. Not 1, 2, and 3.
But still use it to avoid ambiguity. Eg. The following have different meanings.
… Bill, Fred and Jack went swimming
Is different to:
… Bill, Fred, and Jack went swimming.
Avoiding something defended by pedants seems pedantic.
Arts said:
today I went to the store and bought eggs, tomato sauce, fish and chips, and Vegemite.is that not how you use an Oxford comma? to denote the difference between grouping?
Quite so.
To make it clear you do not serve the Vegemite with the fish and chips.
Unless you do.