theweaselking: (Default)
[personal profile] theweaselking


Failure to delimit the items in your comma-separated list with commas is an abomination and never, ever correct - fuck the AP style, the AP style is wrong.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-22 01:16 pm (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-22 01:24 pm (UTC)
maelorin: (won an argument)
From: [personal profile] maelorin
*headdesk*









but then, the way language is butchered by the media, generally, makes this merely yet-another-example of why-grammar-matters.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-22 01:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] onceupon.livejournal.com
YES.

I am printing this out to pin up in my cubicle at work.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-22 02:04 pm (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-22 02:56 pm (UTC)
ashbet: (Cav Wins Again)
From: [personal profile] ashbet
I get into wonderful arguments with [livejournal.com profile] cavalorn about the Oxford comma. I'll be sure to forward this along . . . ;)

-- A <3

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-22 03:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
It's really not complicated! Any list where proper delimitation fails to remove confusion is a *bad list* that remains confused regardless of delimitation. And, in most cases, you wrote it that way deliberately to try to make an example.

So there!

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-23 12:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com
Sometimes you can work around lack of the comma, sometimes not. But that could be said of omitting nearly any punctuation mark: there would usually be a workaround if you want to stop and tinker.

What does anyone have against the comma, nowadays? It was in the Leaden Age that commas were the enemy of typesetters.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-23 12:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] publius1.livejournal.com
Because, really, they are prone to, you know, overuse.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-22 03:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snakey.livejournal.com
I think that mental image is a perfect case AGAINST the Oxford comma. XD XD

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-22 04:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] atothek.livejournal.com
I agree. The sentence is vastly superior to its intended meaning.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-22 04:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tisiphone.livejournal.com
This has just replaced "I'd like to thank my parents, Mother Theresa and the Pope" as my illustrative example. Thank you.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-22 04:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
I've always used "I would like to thank my parents, Ayn Rand and God."

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-23 02:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wherever.livejournal.com
Ah, but what about "My mother, Ayn Rand, and God"? Is your mother Ayn Rand?

Can you tell I just re-read the Wikipedia article on serial commas? ;)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-23 06:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
You have to work, hard, to deliberately misinterpret that as anything other than a list of three items.

"My mother, Ayn Rand and God" would imply that the mother is both Rand and God. Putting the comma in makes it unambiguous.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-23 06:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wherever.livejournal.com
They both seem ambiguous to me... it might be better to take a third option and rephrase it so as to remove all ambiguity - perhaps use parenthesis.

It seems to me that a hard and fast rule won't work for this - that in most cases serial commas are best and remove ambiguity, but in other rare cases rather than following a rule, one should do what is most clear. So one would actually have to rely on one's writing skills rather than a style manual. ;)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-23 08:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
"My mother, Ayn Rand, and God" cannot be interpreted as "My mother is both Ayn Rand and God", because the correctly placed comme shows that this is a list.

Similarly, the Wikipedia "Betty, a maid, and a cook" example is also one that requires deliberate, malicious effort to misunderstand as anything other than a list of three items. If you meant to say "Betty, who is a maid and a cook", you MUST remove the comma. If you meant to say "Betty who is a maid, and also a cook who is not Betty", you have ALSO failed and need to go back to Comma School, because what you WROTE was a list of three separate items.

But the point is, the Oxford Comma is inevitably and always correct: When delimiting a list with commas, all items must be delimited by commas. If you want multiple terms in a single list entry you do NOT delimit them with commas, because commas are your list entry delimiters. If you fail to delimit an entry in your comma-delimited list with a comma, you are Doing It Wrong.

Leaving the last item of your list un-comma-ed is always, always, always wrong. And it makes me itch.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-24 02:21 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wherever.livejournal.com
Ah, yeah, I see your point. While the serial comma might not always completely remove ambiguity, not using it doesn't get rid of it either, so you should always use it.

To be clear, I'm not arguing with your opinion, I was just curious what you thought of the Wikipedia description of the controversy.

And you gotta love the bit about Nelson Mandela, an 800 year old demigod, and a dildo collector. ;)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-23 03:56 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] singingnettle.livejournal.com
I think I like it without the comma, just for the imagery.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-10-23 01:45 pm (UTC)

Profile

theweaselking: (Default)theweaselking
Page generated Jul. 30th, 2025 12:16 am