The Case For The Oxford Comma

In English grammar, a comma is a punctuative that separates words, phrases, and clauses. Disagreement exists now that did not when I was young (that’s because there was only one rule and the introduction of change is somewhat recent). The discrepancy has to do with what is known as the Oxford Comma. It is called that because it is the older and standard rule as listed in the Oxford Style Manual. Sometimes it is called the serial comma. That’s because it is used when items in a series are listed in a sentence. For example: “I packed for the trip my journal, my walking shoes, and my snorkel.” The last comma before and is the Oxford Comma.

Why The Change?

The reason for the change is because some say the and implies the comma and it is not necessary. Sometimes it is, or confusion ensues. What is interesting is that the proposal for change is not truly based on any linguistic reasons. The change was put forth by the publishing industry. To leave out an unnecessary comma saves space, which saves money in the publishing industry. How cheap do you gotta be? These are the same geniuses who changed two spaces after a period to one, and for the same reason. Let that sink in – the argument the Oxford Comma is not coming form linguist or professors, but printers looking to shave a few pennies from the cost of printing. I declare shenanigans!

Clarity

What someone wrote a book, and stated on the dedication page, “I dedicate this book to my parents, Barbara Bush and Jesus Christ.” This statement omits the Oxford Comma. Is the writer saying his book is dedicated to four people, or that his parents are Barbara Bush and Jesus Christ? The Oxford Comma would clear that up. Or what if I said, “I had over for dinner last night a couple of prostitutes, Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein.” Am I calling Bill and Harvey a couple of prostitutes, or were they there along with the prostitutes? The Oxford Comma would let you know for sure.

A Real-World Problem

This is not all hypothetical things for grammar nerds to argues about. He absence of a comma recently led to a multi-million-dollar lawsuit. Maine’s Oakhurst Dairy was sued by some of its drivers over backpay due from overtime. Maine state law at the time stated that workers are not entitled to overtime pay for: “The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of: (1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; and (3) Perishable foods.” The argument was that a lack of a comma after shipping that it is the packing “for shipment or distribution” that’s not eligible for overtime and not the distribution itself. Only with a comma would “distribution” have been included as one of the series of activities ineligible for overtime. The drivers won and the dairy had to pay. A proper Oxford Comma would have kept this from becoming such a problem.

The Oxford Comma is not only based upon common sense, but decades, even centuries of uninterrupted use. The proposal for change did not come from language people, but book and newspaper folk. It has no legitimate claim to change anything. Let’s keep the Oxford Comma. If anyone tries to make me change, they’ll have to pry the Oxford Comma from my cold, firm, determined, and stubborn hands.

 

 

The Case For The Oxford Comma

The use of the Oxford Comma was considered standard and acceptable English grammar for as long as there have been commas. As a reminder, the Oxford Comma is used where there are three or more items separated by commas. The Oxford Comma is the final comma that appears before the conjunction. For example, “I went downtown with Tom, Dick, and Harry.” That last comma is known as the Oxford Comma.

When I was young and still in school, I was taught to use the Oxford Comma, but before my school days ended, I was told I no longer needed to. So now there are people on both side of this fence. I am definitely on the pro-Oxford side of things.

The Reason for Omitting

The argument is that the Oxford comma is unnecessary and redundant. The conjunction implies everything the comma declares. It’s like signaling in a turn only lane (even though legally you are still supposed to signal then).

But the idea to remove the Oxford Comma did not come about by scholarly refection. It was the notion of publishers and printers. Back in the day when printing real estate was prime it cost as much to print a comma as it did a question mark. So in order to save money, publishers all agreed that they could save money by removing all of the Oxford Commas from print.

This means that the reason for omitting the Oxford Comma came not from scholars, but publishers. The motivation to strike out this rule did not originate with style, but with saving money. Should this be the standard that determines rules for writing? And in our times when there is no extra cost to printing a comma, this obstacle is obsolete.

The Reason Why

The Oxford Comma has been standard English since King Harold. Despite its British name, the Oxford Comma predates the English language. And there is no real linguistic reason to change it.

But when you think about it, there is a clear reason to keep it. Consider the sentence, “I went to the store and saw my school teacher, a hypochondriac, and a kleptomaniac.” This sentence uses the Oxford Comma, and because it does there is no doubt that the person speaking is talking about three different people. Take Oxford Comma out and look at what happens: “I went to the store and saw my school teacher, a hypochondriac and a kleptomaniac.” This could refer to three people, but it could also be read that the teacher is both a hypochondriac and a kleptomaniac.

Loot at another example: “Sitting in the Oval Office is Ronald Reagan, George Bush, a wizard, and a leprechaun.” This sentence with the Oxford Comma makes it obvious that there are four people sitting in the Oval Office. Now let’s remove the Oxford Comma and see what happens: “Sitting in the Oval Office is Ronald Reagan, George Bush, a wizard and a leprechaun.” While this may describe four people, it could also picture two. This sentence makes Reagan out to be a wizard and Bush a leprechaun.

Simply put, the problem of omitting the Oxford Comma is confusion and ambiguity. Sentences with the Oxford Comma are clear. The use of it is historic. There are no reasons regarding language to exclude it. The best reason to cut out the Oxford Comma is based on publishers and their bottom line. That is not compelling enough. Let’s keep the Oxford Comma and make it our standard use until it becomes the universally accepted norm once more.