Why the Oxford Comma Is a Must
June 15th, 2015
"Take a seat, sit straight, and pull your chair forward. We've another Musing of the Week to read!" (Yay!)
Observe how that sentence was written, more specifically, the comma separating the second and third item in the list of the first sentence. Most commonly spotted in lists of three, the Oxford (serial) comma is a choice every writer has to make eventually; that's right: the Oxford comma is not mandatory, despite the persistent debates between the Grammar Nazis and the Grammar Hippies. But before you take a sigh of relief and click away from this week's read, I'm going to do my best to sway those of you anti-Oxford-comma folks to change your sinful, sinful ways.
First, let's go over why the Oxford Comma is so damn prevalent, as well as its origins.
As stated by Motivated Grammar:
"The Oxford comma is so called because it is standard in the style guide for the Oxford University Press, and has been for over a hundred years. The Oxford comma is attested in the 1905 edition of the OUP Style Guide, and remains there to this day. The comma also goes by a few other names. Those of a less Anglophilic bent can call it the Harvard comma..."
It has history; students of language know that writing is neither biology nor math -- there is no true way in which to speak, as language is an ever-evolving beast, like us. When it stops evolving, it is likely human beings have stopped breathing long before.
More importantly, the Oxford comma is of great repute, and is admired by certain sects of the literary community. Some university English professors will shout your head off if your essays lack its usage, and more importantly, certain publications will see the lack of an Oxford comma as a lack of education on your part; this will be followed by the potential denial of your entry into their magazine, perhaps with notice, but most likely without.
So why is the Oxford comma useful?
Let's go over a couple examples:
Observe how that sentence was written, more specifically, the comma separating the second and third item in the list of the first sentence. Most commonly spotted in lists of three, the Oxford (serial) comma is a choice every writer has to make eventually; that's right: the Oxford comma is not mandatory, despite the persistent debates between the Grammar Nazis and the Grammar Hippies. But before you take a sigh of relief and click away from this week's read, I'm going to do my best to sway those of you anti-Oxford-comma folks to change your sinful, sinful ways.
First, let's go over why the Oxford Comma is so damn prevalent, as well as its origins.
As stated by Motivated Grammar:
"The Oxford comma is so called because it is standard in the style guide for the Oxford University Press, and has been for over a hundred years. The Oxford comma is attested in the 1905 edition of the OUP Style Guide, and remains there to this day. The comma also goes by a few other names. Those of a less Anglophilic bent can call it the Harvard comma..."
It has history; students of language know that writing is neither biology nor math -- there is no true way in which to speak, as language is an ever-evolving beast, like us. When it stops evolving, it is likely human beings have stopped breathing long before.
More importantly, the Oxford comma is of great repute, and is admired by certain sects of the literary community. Some university English professors will shout your head off if your essays lack its usage, and more importantly, certain publications will see the lack of an Oxford comma as a lack of education on your part; this will be followed by the potential denial of your entry into their magazine, perhaps with notice, but most likely without.
So why is the Oxford comma useful?
Let's go over a couple examples:
There is a separation in the list with the usage of the Oxford comma, and not just the normal breath (pause) that is taken when any ordinary comma is applied. With the usage of the Oxford comma, a writer can avoid conveying the image of soggy, orange-juice laden toast. Common sense implies one would never soak their toast in orange juice, but sometimes common sense isn't enough, as seen in this next image.
Are we to assume the Obama-Castro handshake was one of a kind? Did they really patch a 50+ year economic conflict that quickly? Stranger things have happened, I assume. But the entire point is to not assume. A clear writer is a quality writer; he/she is concise and deliberate with their diction, and they make every word bear meaning, no matter how long or short the piece.
Bear in mind, if the Oxford comma primarily concerned accuracy, there would be no argument, as its usage would be ubiquitous among English-writing countries. There are exceptions to the rule, as seen in this next example:
(From a 1934 article style book of the New York Herald Tribune)
"Those at the ceremony were the commodore, the fleet captain, the donor of the cup, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Jones."
While the Oxford comma does a fantastic job of separating its articles and promoting accuracy, it does so at the expense of brevity and fluidity, if not careful.
The Oxford comma is a wonderful tool in building a fantasy world, writing the instructions on how to bake the perfect Tiramisu cake, or just reading daily news. I prefer to use it, but many do not (I'm looking at you, the entirety of the UK). In closing, I'll leave you with some data on the Oxford comma.
As always, happy reading and writing. I'll see you next week!
All the best,
-V.C. Remus