this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2023
162 points (100.0% liked)
Chat
7480 readers
8 users here now
Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think the problem is that not everyone translates text in their brain the same way.
I translate it as if I were speaking it. So when I see "We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin," I read it exactly as I'd say it, which is, the strippers were JFK and Stalin. When I read "We invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin", the comma pause is not rendered as text in my brain, but like a quarter-rest in a musical score, and that pause is what allows my brain to separate JFK and Stalin from each other.
Other people translate text more visually, I guess, and that problem doesn't exist there? I wouldn't know, I can't even begin to fathom how "JFK and Stalin" could be read in any way that doesn't mean they're the strippers.
I mean, if you were trying on purpose to say JFK and Stalin were the names of the strippers, and not the dead historical figures, how would you punctuate that sentence? Without the Oxford comma, the clause is clearly an appositive, not a list.
And then when you get into longer lists, it becomes even more of a pain in the ass. "Some suggested treatments for this condition are patella surgery, physical therapy and exercise, plate insertion, bone fusing and bedrest, among others." Is "bone fusing and bedrest" one item? We have another item in the list that's a combination treatment with "and", is this also one? Or are they two separate treatments? Did the author omit the Oxford comma, or did they omit the Oxford "and"? It's very common for academic authors, particularly, to make that kind of typo. They drop articles and conjunctions all the time. Now I have to e-mail the author and ask "What did you mean here?" because, as the editor, I can't just assume "oh, they don't like the Oxford comma, so this sentence is fine". There are a lot of places where a small typo like missing "and" will make or break the intended meaning and the scientific veracity of an academic paper.
So yeah, I guess if all your writing is stylistic fiction where precision isn't important, and your reading style is visual rather than auditory, an Oxford comma might "look ugly" and it could be safely ignored. But for anything technical, it's kind of important.
To be clear, you can't omit the comma and make it ambiguous if you simply acknowledge it's wrong and don't make it a confusing optional thing. The comma is more ambiguous than the ambiguity it's trying to solve.
But I don't think I buy your theory of it being a difference in how you picture it because, again, all of these are sentences you can and often do say out loud. Either you are constantly confused when people talk to you about more than two things or this is not a big deal unless you psyche yourself out by considering whether the omitted comma should be present.
And if there is any room for ambiguity, in speech and in writing it's easy to resolve by simply changing the order or by adding an extra word, which is just as much effort as the comma with the advantage that it solves the open question of whether the comma should have been there.
So for instance, "I invited the strippers and also JFK and Stalin". This is unnecessary in this example, but it has the undeniable advantage that it's just as clear in speech as in writing.
OK, here's another way to look at it.
Let's say the strippers are called JFK and Stalin, for some reason.
How do you make that undeniably clear with no ambiguity? Give me a sentence, written with no other words in the way I did above, that is unambiguous about the names of the strippers.
You can't. Because in a world where the comma is optional the sentence with no comma is always ambiguous. The comma solves nothing.
I think we both agree that the comma being optional is the mother of ten thousand confusions, we just disagree on what should be done about that.
If the Oxford comma was required, the sentence naming the strippers as JFK and Stalin no longer has any ambiguity whatsoever; it can only mean one thing.
If the Oxford comma was banned, the sentence naming the strippers would have to be rearranged entirely to avoid ambiguity. Instead of being able to clarify the relationship with a single keypress or tiny jot, we have to edit the entire sentence (the simplest way I can think of would be to say "JFK and Stalin are the strippers I invited.")
As for the bit about speech, you've lost me. I've never had a conversation with another native English speaker (and I've lived in 10 different US states, from Texas to Connecticut) where a list of three or more things was spoken without a pause before the "and". Maybe it's different in other English-speaking countries? I also used to have regular conversations with an Australian, and I never noticed any confusion, but that was some 20ish years ago now, so my memory might not be reliable.