at work today the hottest topic of conversation has been the serial comma. i HATE the serial comma. hate, hate, hate it. i am constantly appalled when i discover that my serial comma usuage at work has spilled over into my non-work writing. the serial comma is just superfluous.
but, it seems i am gathering allies in my protest of the serial comma. two of my co-workers are starting to voice their displeasure at the serial comma too!
a few months ago we had a battle royal with the tech writers about style and what not. they loved the serial comma and fought long and hard for it. sadly, i was outnumbered. dejected, scared and beaten, i gave in to the serial commaists.
but, soon the front will be reinforced with new troops. i am hoping that when they hire the new senior copywriter and the marcom director that we can win the war and sentence the serial comma to death.
serial comma?
the comma before the and. red, white and blue OR red, white, and blue. i like it without the serial comma.
Have you pointed out that when you’re describing only two objects you don’t use a comma there (Bread and butter. Milk and juice. Dumb and Dumber.)
Then why, oh why, would someone use a comma? (Tom, and Jerry. Barnes, and Nobles. Peas, and carrots.)
By definition, and is a conjuction (the 30 year anniversary edition of Schoolhouse Rock is available on DVD, have them watch Conjunction Junction so that they may understand) and as such already “conjoins” the object postceeding it to the object or string of objects preceeding it. The serial comma is superfluous, displeasant and incorrect. Not even a matter of taste; It’s wrong (It’s vs Its is my pet peeve; IT’S incorrect to use serial commas. The collective of tech writers has ITS head in ITS ass.)
And in case “they” want to know, I had a 790 on the english portion of my SAT, am now a member of MENSA, have a verified IQ of 163 and studied COBOL programming (from the putrid loins of whence was concieved a proper usage for the accursed “serial comma”.)
oh yeah. hate that. love *you*. hate that. =)
i’m with you, jodi. i was always taught that the serial comma was wrong, just WRONG! i never use it, though in my word processing days i was often asked (in a condescending tone) to put in that last comma i had “forgotten”.
sigh.
Clearly, you are all goofy. By “all of you”, I mean Jodi, Thomas, Heather, and Andrea.
Don’t even get me started on people who don’t capitalize the first word of a sentence or proper nouns.
😛
you must really, really, hate me.
Au contraire. I think you’re just spiffy. But don’t get me started. Heh.
And where are the fair pictures, Ms. Left-Work-Early?
You probably knew I’d chime in eventually. According to Strunk and White’s Element’s of Style:
In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last. Thus, write — red, white, and blue.
You know I love you, but in the rock-paper-scissor’s of literary style, a Strunk & White beats a Jodi.
Tim, I’m sure you meant to type “Strunk and White’s Elements of Style”, and that extra apostrophe just snuck in there by itself.
/pedant
To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.
Jodi, why am I only commenting to disagree with you? 😉
The serial comma is a necessary evil, there in part to indicate a pause. If you leave it out you will get humorous results like the one above. My rule of thumb is to say the phrase out loud, and where you pause, put a comma.
There are places where the serial comma is redundant. There are places where omission of the comma produces ambiguity. Redundancy is harmless, ambiguity can be fatal. Elimination of the serial comma is a bad, bad idea.
JG Collins
I agree with JG Collins. His notions are backed by reasoning, as opposed to the largely emotive comments preceding it.
Here’s the rule: use a serial comma when any of the items in a series are separated by “and.” (Pears, grapefruits, apples and oranges, and peaches). When items in a series are not separated by and, you may refrain from using the serial comma, unless doing so results in ambiguity.
Of course, one would have to be able to tell the difference between an ambiguous and a coherent sentence. That takes practice.
I find it doubtful that anyone who doesn’t use a serial comma actually reads above an eighth grade level. They certainly don’t write much, unless it’s for the media. Besides the classic “my parents, Ayn Rand and God” fiasco, there’s any complex series. Furthermore, punctuation shouldn’t be based on some abstract set of rules, but on providing clarity for the reader.
I got a @#$%!&* 800 on my Verbal GRE, so there!
What about “nor?” Do these barbarians want us to write “Competence in punctuation is not in fact tested by the GRE, nor the SAT_ nor the man in the moon?”
>>
Well, Thomas, it should come as no surprise to you, with your lofty IQ, that the “from” in the construction “from the putrid loins of whence…” is every bit as redundant as the serial comma. The word “from” is already implied in the word “whence” (definition: from where, from what place, from what origin or source, et cetera). So why don’t you crawl back into the unenlightened hole whence you slithered out, smarty-pants?
Omitting the serial comma creates ambiguity in a sentence by grouping together the last two items (apples, oranges and pears). I’ve always read that use of the serial comma is grammatically correct, yet it’s conspicuously absent from all legal writing. Omission seems to be stylistically accepted, but I prefer to include the serial comma to improve clarity.
On the “its” and “it’s” dilemma, I think proper usage dictates the apostrophe in the conjunction, not the possessive.
To the person who thought that they were defending the abandoning of the Serial Comma with the arguement, – “that when you’re describing only two objects you don’t use a comma there (Bread and butter. Milk and juice. Dumb and Dumber.)” -(That would be jodi); How could she not see that this argues FOR the use of a serial comma and is exactly why a serial comma is neccessary.
A gouping of two without the the comma IS a Single unit. With the comma, they are to be seen as things distinct from each other. As can be seen, “David, Tom, and Jerry” means something entirely drifferent than ” David, Tom and Jerry”. In the second instance it is clear that Tom and Jerry are a unit and therefore okay not use the comma.
It is NEVER okay to omit the serial comma when you are describing three equivalents.
This begs the question, are you the one lumping the items together? Grammatically speaking, “and” is merely a conjunction, the same as “or”. Would you consider “apples, oranges or pears” to have grouped together oranges with pears? Are you advocating the use of “apples, oranges, or pears”? Yes, it DOES look rather silly. In your example of “David, Tom and Jerry”, what if we referred to them by their professions of “Doctor, Lawyer and Salesman”; Do you think that one might confuse the Lawyer as being a part-time Salesman?
The serial comma is never needed as the conjunction itself is designed to separate the objects as being different.
Sorry, that was me.
that’s okay, we didn’t give any credibility to your statement until you signed it.
Would you please get three items:
1)milk
2)macaroni and cheese.
3)crackers
__________________________________
Three items, and it’s very clear:
…get me milk, macaroni and cheese, and crackers.
Three items, but I have to read it twice to understand:
…get me milk, macaroni and cheese and crackers.
Is the second item “macaroni and cheese ” or is it just “macaroni”?
For those that hate commas. Please buy macaroni and cheese and crackers. How many items are you going to buy?
Have mercy on the husband doing the shopping for that list!
The best grammar rule holds true and is effective for ALL situations.
Mark M.
I like the serial comma, but when compelled not to use it, I move the compound items to the end: milk, crackers, and macaroni and cheese. With multiple compound items.
I wonder is there is an age thing going on here. I’m 37 and I’ve always been taught to use the serial (or Harvard) comma. But there’s a new 20-something guy here that seems bent on eliminating it from all our publications. Little twirp.
the none serial comma is Associated Press (AP) style, which is where i picked it up. however, here at work we use the serial comma and i am dismayed that it’s sneaking into my repetoire.
It’s alright. The cretinous fuckers who advocate the use of the serial comma are cut from the same bolt as those who derived the so-called “Romance Languages” by bastardizing Latin.
And so they can understand my personal feelings on this matter, I’ll entreat them, in their own chosen style, to “eat shit, and die”. (Obviously, the serial comma abusers would have been confused and left asking, “…a standard 6 sided die or a 10 sided percentage die?”)
If anyone takes offense, you can contact my lawyers; Dewey, Cheetham and Howe.
The only “authorities” who advocate omitting the final (serial/Harvard/Oxford) comma are newspaper style guides (which wish to save column space) and some English writers (who waffle on the rule). But what do the other “authorities” have to say on this matter?
Wilson Follett, Modern American Usage: A Guide – “What, then, are the arguments for omitting the last comma? Only one is cogent — the saving of space. In the narrow width of a newspaper column this saving counts for more than elsewhere, which is why the omission is so nearly universal in journalism. But here or anywhere one must question whether the advantage outweighs the confusion caused by the omission. … The recommendation here is that [writers] use the comma between all members of a series, including the last two, on the common-sense ground that to do so will preclude ambiguities and annoyances at a negligible cost.”
Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers – “A series of three or more words, phrases, or clauses (like this) takes a comma between each of the elements and before a conjunction separating the last two.”
Chicago Manual of Style – “In a series consisting of three or more elements, the elements are separated by commas. When a conjunction joins the last two elements in a series, a comma is used before the conjunction.”
William Sabin, Gregg Reference Manual – “When three or more items are listed in a series, and the last item is preceded by and, or, or nor, place a comma before the conjunction as well as between the other items.”
Council of Biology Editors, Scientific Style and Format – “To separate the elements (words, phrases, clauses) or a simple series of more than 2 elements. A comma should precede a closing ‘and’ or ‘or.’ This rule applies to adjectives each modifying the following noun.”
Strunk and White, Elements of Style – “In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last.”
Checkmate.
I see, and do you have any references that are after 1950?
I’m sure if you search hard enough you’ll find all sorts of rules about men’s hats, a lady’s curtsey, the proper usage of “hoy, hoy” when answering a telephone, the spelling of “potatoe” and other such useless bit archaism.
While it’s true that research does not lie, liars do reasearch.
Also, there is no “checkmate” when it comes to opinions and personal preferences, no matter how very sad and wrong you are.
I was taught to omit the last comma unless needed to eliminate ambiguity. Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage, 2nd edition (p. 588), says the “more usual way of punctuating … an enumeration … is French, German, Italian and Spanish: the commas between French and German and German and Italian take the place of ands; there is no comma after Italian because, with and, it would be otiose.” Warriner’s English Grammar and Composition, Fourth Course (p. 379) says “When the last two items in a series are joined by and, you may omit the comma before the and if the comma is not necessary to make the meaning clear.”
The rule mkh suggests – put a comma where you would pause when speaking – works well, even for the counterexamples suggested by pankwindu, Don and Mark. Jon Hanemann’s rule is also helpful: use a serial comma when any of the items in a series are separated by “and.” (It seems to me that mkh’s rule would handle those cases as well). Superfluous serial commas always look to me like they were put there by writers not completely comfortable with the English language.
WHAT’S THIS I HEAR about hating the cereal comma? Why, if we didn’t have the cereal coma, who would buy Honey, Nuts & Oats??
Emily L.
American authorities, with the exception of newspaper style guides such as the AP style book, have always strongly recommended the serial comma and continue to do so.
British authorities tend to recommend omitting it or having it optional, with the exception of the Oxford University Press, which requires it. (Hence the serial comma is sometimes known as the “Oxford comma.”)
Both styles can cause ambiguities, but in general omitting it causes more ambuguities; as the aforementioned apocryphal “To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.”
The problem isn’t that the serial comma should be wiped from the face of the Earth entirely; As it was mentioned before, the serial comma should be excluded EXCEPT WHERE NEEDED TO AVOID CONFUSION. Are we such sheep that we need to have one rule that is all encompassing so we don’t have to use our brains? Isn’t the “I before E except after C” subject to it’s own weird exceptions? And as far as these American authorities; Who exactly are they, and why to they have a love affair with a redundant piece of punctuation? German authorities, once upon a time, believed that genocide was a real GOOD idea, but we’ve come to refute that idea too.