 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006commas in lists of item?
Hi, My wife and I were both taught to insert commas between all items in a list, including the final item preceded by a conjunction. For example: We went there with Jake, Steve, Jane, and Lulu. NOT We went there with Jake, Steve, Jane and Lulu. However, many people we know, generally of the generation prior to ours, insist the latter is correct. What's going on? Thanks! > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thanks! > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thanks! > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thanks! This is known as the "serial comma". It's one of those things that's argued over endlessly, and there's no real "right" or "wrong". It just depends on which style you prefer. There is a discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma. > > Hi, > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > depends on which style you prefer. There is a discussion at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma. This group's FAQ also has an item on the topic, available at <http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxabandc.html>.  SignatureBob Lieblich Who generally prefers to insert the serial comma [...] > This is known as the "serial comma". It's one of those things that's > argued over endlessly, and there's no real "right" or "wrong". It just > depends on which style you prefer. There is a discussion at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma. If you read that article closely, you will, I think, see that the arguments for omitting the serial comma are awfully feeble. The entries under "creates ambiguity" have a forced quality; moreover, you will find, one, "neither the use nor the avoidance of the serial comma resolves the ambiguity", and two, "may create an ambiguous sentence regardless of whether the serial comma is adopted". In other words, most or all ambiguous castings are ambiguous either way, while there are many that are ambiguous without the comma but not with it. Whether there is a "right" or a "wrong" is not the issue: the issue is which form clearly tends to promote clarity, and inclusion of the comma is that form. In the rare instances where ambiguity is possible no matter what, one simply resorts to the semicolon (or any of the many other possibilities demonstrated in that article). > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thanks! Jungleman <eric.jung@yahoo.com>, the person employed to tap the heads of nodding dog ornaments on the dashboards of volvos in sales yards, blathered: > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > However, many people we know, generally of the generation prior to > ours, insist the latter is correct. What's going on? The way the language is used changed, you f.cking stupid c.nt. Signaturealt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005 and April 2006 "K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour, but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion "If the truth be known, the only reason Osama is still on the loose is because he himself hasn't fallen victim to the K-Man." - Wog George Thou slut. Thou sottish, deceiving hog sucker. > Jungleman, the person employed to tap the heads of > nodding dog ornaments on the dashboards of volvos in sales yards, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The way the language is used changed, you f.cking stupid c.nt. A little bit, and only sometimes. Signature________________________________________________________________________ Hail Eris! Demon Prince of Absurdity "And no, I did not have sex with my son. But if I did I certainly wouldn't tell you. Something so beautiful and precious should be kept private." -- Kathy L. Mosesian, or possibly not really her, confesses she may be a liar and committer of incest with her own son, in MID: <cfcd3f4660694e3afeaadaa2723e9ab1@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> The reporter asked Colin Powell (or George Bush), "What proof do you have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?" He replied, "We kept the receipts." -- Bill Hicks "They thought I was fair game. I was an instrument of purpose to achieve their desires and not 100 percent real and ALSO that they had me by the short curlies because I thought that the world revolved around them and therefore I think that I am fair game and rightly so. If they want to play dirty, I get to too. It's not a one-way street. I will use the physcial strength that I have over them, my superior 5'7-3/4" height advantage, the boxing moves I paid to learn, the suprise of pussyfooting up to them with their back to me in a public place 18 1/2 years after the fact and thus not only do will they not know that I am but a pica's distance away from them, but that I even exist on earth." -- Chris Tsao is secretly John Wentzky's psychic twin. MID: <1161246083.152300.195760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Looney Maroon nominee for August 2006 Johnny D Wentzky foamed: "You never asked someone who goes into areas of the internet that are only for adults who has an underage id somehow or another if they are a cop posing as an underage person online? I guess lots of people just don't watch dateline or read stories much. Why don;t you go to pervertedjustice,com and see what they do. They are awash in their self-proclaimed glory after they lied to membners of the public. They are awash in their self-proclaimed glory after they posed as an underage person and agreed to do all sorts of sex acts wioth adult males, and they are adults posing as teenager themselves. They make themsleves into liars by falsely impersonating underage persons and by not fuilfilling the words they tell the victims online in their chats. Why don't you read it where they tell these victims of their deceit about how they have been with grown men and such? Why don't you read it where they say, "That would be cool." after someone makes an advance towards an adult who is posing as a teenager? And, where they agree to meet the person, etc. Lost control, didn't you? Is that why you feel as if you need to lie so much now? I see where lots of these false impersonation games are not sticking. They feel as if they can lie and then order the victims to get counseling in the gayblade, governmental, pro-choice tax leech counseling centers. They are doing nothing more than usury and fraud in many cases." -- Wentzky almost comes out of the closet as a pedo/ephebophile in MID: <H%%Eg.28916$Uq1.22411@bignews6.bellsouth.net> Jungleman filted: >My wife and I were both taught to insert commas between all items in a >list, including the final item preceded by a conjunction. For example: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >However, many people we know, generally of the generation prior to >ours, insist the latter is correct. What's going on? The complete and utter breakdown of civilization....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. >Jungleman filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >The complete and utter breakdown of civilization....r Precisely. SignatureCharles Riggs >> Jungleman filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Precisely. Well, at least "the dumbing down" of civilization. SignatureMaria >>> Jungleman filted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Well, at least "the dumbing down" of civilization. Eventually there's bound to be a clash between those who know more and more about less and less, and those who know less and less about more and more. I wonder who will win. SignatureRobin Herts, England > Eventually there's bound to be a clash between those who know more and > more about less and less, and those who know less and less about more > and more. I wonder who will win. Are we talking about the known knowns and unknown knowns? Oh, I forgot: he's gone. SignatureRob Bannister > Robin Bignall wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Are we talking about the known knowns and unknown knowns? Oh, I forgot: > he's gone. And anyway, it was the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns. But what do I know? SignatureBob Lieblich The Unknown Poster > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thanks! I have no idea which one is correct, but whatever you chose, be consistent: if you chose not to insert a comma before "and", then don't insert it before "etc" either. Arcadian Rises filted: >> We went there with Jake, Steve, Jane, and Lulu. >> NOT [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >consistent: if you chose not to insert a comma before "and", then don't >insert it before "etc" either. Sensible advice, as "et" *is* "and".... If one does choose to include the serial comma, Would not complete consistency require it even in lists comprising only two items?...vide: "I would like some ham, and eggs." ....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. [...] > If one does choose to include the serial comma, Would not complete > consistency require it even in lists comprising only two items?...vide: > > "I would like some ham, and eggs." Require? No. The purpose of the comma or commas is to keep separate what are separate things, lest we lose track. But with only two members, there is no distinction. Putting it another way, the series "a, b, c, and d" is merely shorthand for "a and b and c and d". We only risk problems if, for example, "c and d" is by itself the name of a unitary thing (such as "rock and roll"). But because we want to always avoid the potential for such risks, we use the commas. When all we have is "a and b", it makes no difference whatever to understanding when we write "a and b" whether "a" and "b" are separate entities or a unitary thing. The "or", that is, is exclusive: whether you think the writer is asking for some ham and also some eggs or whether he is asking for a dish named "ham and eggs" is immaterial; normally in such instances either only one or the other case is plausible, or else--as here--the distinction is irrelevant. (I suppose that there could be unusual particular cases in which "a and b" is a pairing of two distinct things whereas some "a-and-b" compound thing, quite significantly different from the two paired but separate, also exists; but in the even more unusual subset of such cases in which there is no handy verb to tell us, by its number, which is meant--"X and Y is/are"--the need for some other casting to clarify the case would normally scream for attention.) Eric Walker <email@owlcroft.com>, the usurer and officer of the crown, hissed: > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > which is meant--"X and Y is/are"--the need for some other casting to > clarify the case would normally scream for attention.) What a f.cking load of old cobblers. PS: You have far too many superfluous commas in your bullshit. Signaturealt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005 and April 2006 "K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour, but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion "If the truth be known, the only reason Osama is still on the loose is because he himself hasn't fallen victim to the K-Man." - Wog George Thou stigmatic. Thy will is most malignant. [~`~] > What a f.cking load of old cobblers. I didn't read what he said, but wtf is a "load of old cobblers"? and will you give me permission to use it on my home froup in later conflagrations? > PS: You have far too many superfluous > commas in your bullshit. I also have too many tape-worms, what to do, what to do?? [OhGee added, because we originate teh NEdotWEATHER] Olaf Timandahaff <timandahaff@gmail.com>, the mercenary and gun runner, sniggered: > [~`~] >> >> What a f.cking load of old cobblers. >> > I didn't read what he said, but wtf is a "load of old cobblers"? http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-cob1.htm > and will you give me permission to use it on my home froup in later > conflagrations? Yes. >> PS: You have far too many superfluous >> commas in your bullshit. > > I also have too many tape-worms, what to do, what to do?? http://www.combantrin.com.au/ Signaturealt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005 and April 2006 "K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour, but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion "If the truth be known, the only reason Osama is still on the loose is because he himself hasn't fallen victim to the K-Man." - Wog George Thou half-wit. Those healths will make thee and thy state look ill. > Arcadian Rises filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > "I would like some ham, and eggs." No, silly. Two make a pair, not a series. A series requires three. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." > My wife and I were both taught to insert commas between all > items in a list, including the final item preceded by a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > However, many people we know, generally of the generation prior > to ours, insist the latter is correct. What's going on? It's merely a usage dispute that has two sides. Ignore all those who don't agree with you. They're wrong. I say that to everyone on both sides of the debate. As long as there's a choice, make one and stick to it. Assume the other side is peopled by ignoramuses and you will sleep better at night. For the record, I also believe that the final serial comma is required, but it's a matter of faith and style preference. It's also a matter of wishing to be consistent with my punctuation, unlike the othersiders, who could not care less about being careless. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Everything you do today is practice for tomorrow." Including omitting the serial comma when it's needed. >> My wife and I were both taught to insert commas between all >> items in a list, including the final item preceded by a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >a matter of wishing to be consistent with my punctuation, unlike the >othersiders, who could not care less about being careless. Is it acceptable to have a foot in both camps without being inconsistent? I think it is. With some reluctance, I use the serial comma to disambiguate ("I ordered chips, a steak and kidney pudding, and mushy peas") but otherwise tend to find it over-fussy and sometimes even confusing -- especially when there are three items that go together almost as an idiom: "Tom, Dick, and Harry" and "masculine, feminine, and neuter" are just prissy, but "bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich" and "Peter, Paul, and Mary's songs" are ghastly. (I fully realise that my fundamentalist position on compound-modifier hyphens -- like that -- would make it logical for me also to be a serial-comma user, but for some reason I find a plethora of hyphens a lot less irritating than an unnecessary peppering of commas.) SignatureRoss Howard > >> My wife and I were both taught to insert commas between all > >> items in a list, including the final item preceded by a [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > feminine, and neuter" are just prissy, but "bacon, lettuce, and tomato > sandwich" and "Peter, Paul, and Mary's songs" are ghastly. I agree. I personally don't like the serial comma, but feel obliged to use it in exactly the sort of circumstances you mention. Because of the intervening "pudding" I might just feel I could leave it out in "I ordered chips, a steak and kidney pudding and mushy peas", but not in "I ordered soup, steak and chips, and ice-cream". > (I fully realise that my fundamentalist position on compound-modifier > hyphens -- like that -- would make it logical for me also to be a > serial-comma user, but for some reason I find a plethora of hyphens a > lot less irritating than an unnecessary peppering of commas.) I think that "compound-modifier hyphens" definitely needs a hyphen, otherwise it could be read as "compound modifier-hyphens". > dontbother <dontbother@mushmail.mom> wrought: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Is it acceptable to have a foot in both camps without being > inconsistent? I think it is. I don't see how. But because I am fairly obsessive-compulsive about these things, I may not be a fair judge. Unless one uses the serial comma every time one has a series, one is inconsistent. I agree with Eric Walker on this issue. In those few instances where the serial comma might cause confusion, the option is to use semi- colons or some other device (recasting?) for clarity. > With some reluctance, I use the serial comma to disambiguate > ("I ordered chips, a steak and kidney pudding, and mushy peas") This is perfect. I don't see why you are reluctant to write perfectly. > but otherwise tend to find it over-fussy Well, I would ask you whether you find it over-fussy to have three buttons on a vest with three button holes when two would do the job as well. > and sometimes even confusing I've heard that there are instances where the serial comma is confusing, but I can't keep those examples in my mind. I suppose I ought to read the AUE FAQ. >-- especially when there > are three items that go together almost as an idiom: "Tom, Dick, > and Harry" and "masculine, feminine, and neuter" are just > prissy, To me, leaving out the second comma is like spelling résumé "resumé" or "résume"; better to spell it "resume". > but "bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich" "A bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich" makes it less offensive, I should think. > and "Peter, Paul, and Mary's songs" are ghastly. Why not just "Peter Paul and Mary"? We already know they're a trio and shouldn't be led down the garden path of a duo by this rendition. I don't understand why they're ghastly. That's an aesthetic judgment, it seems to me. How about this little PPM snippet? "Fresh Air from WHYY, April 26, 2006 Religion scholar Bart D. Ehrman, who chairs the Department of Religious Studies at UNC- Chapel Hill, talks about his new book, _Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend_." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5364195 http://tinyurl.com/ohoc5 It does seem that all of three have the same surname in this case. Changing it to "_Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend_" makes it seem as if some guy named Paul Peter and Mary Magdalene were a duo. The only way these three can be known for who they were is by knowing beforehand that the first two are never identified by surname but that the third one always is (for obvious reasons, I suppose). Some things are inherently problematic, and this seems to be one of them. When the words are spoken, there are obvious pauses between the names "Peter", "Paul", and "Mary", so I don't see the commas as prissy at all: they merely reflect the spoken word. What we seem to need is a supercomma that is less than a semi-colon but more than a mere comma. > (I fully realise that my fundamentalist position on > compound-modifier hyphens -- like that -- would make it logical > for me also to be a serial-comma user, but for some reason I > find a plethora of hyphens a lot less irritating than an > unnecessary peppering of commas.) I don't mind a lot of those kinds of hyphens, but medical publishers feel about them the way you feel about the serial comma: ghastly in most cases. I think I'd prefer to return to German in such cases. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." dontbother filted: >> and "Peter, Paul, and Mary's songs" are ghastly. > >Why not just "Peter Paul and Mary"? We already know they're a trio >and shouldn't be led down the garden path of a duo by this >rendition. What then of Hamilton, Joe Frank and Reynolds?...r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. > dontbother filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What then of Hamilton, Joe Frank and Reynolds?...r That's an easy one. The first name belongs to either Alexander Hamilton or Hamilton Fish, so this part of the rebus is either a ten- spot or a generic fish figure; Joe is the name of a movie starring Peter Boyle, so it could be a lesion (a boil) or a cuppa java (not the computer programming language); a Frank (capitalized because it's a German noun signifying Frankfurt, as in Frankfurter, a native of that city, a Supreme Court Justice named Felix--so it might be a cat icon--or a hot dog) is what you buy at Coney Island; and Reynolds is the name of a cigarette manufacturer. Now the only task you have left, doctah, is to figure out what you meant by "fish+lesion+dog+sotweed" ("A stinking dead fish is worse than a smoking wet dog?") or "ten+cups+judge+butt" ("After ten coffees, all rear ends jiggle sexily?") or whatever other combinations can be created. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." >Is it acceptable to have a foot in both camps without being >inconsistent? No, it's not acceptable at all! </tongue in="cheek"> >sometimes even confusing -- especially when there are three items that >go together almost as an idiom: "Tom, Dick, and Harry" and "masculine, >feminine, and neuter" are just prissy, but "bacon, lettuce, and tomato >sandwich" and "Peter, Paul, and Mary's songs" are ghastly. Huh? This makes no sense at all to me. What's confusing about it? Do you not read as much of a pause after "Peter" as after "Paul"? -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > >Is it acceptable to have a foot in both camps without being > >inconsistent? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Huh? This makes no sense at all to me. What's confusing about it? > Do you not read as much of a pause after "Peter" as after "Paul"? I naturally read "Peter, Paul, and Mary's songs" as referring to three items: (i) Peter; (ii) Paul; (iii) Mary's songs. I need a second take to get the correct meaning. [...] > I naturally read "Peter, Paul, and Mary's songs" as referring to three > items: (i) Peter; (ii) Paul; (iii) Mary's songs. I need a second take > to get the correct meaning. But that has nothing to do with the commas and everything to do with the genitive form of grouped sequential nouns. A reference to "John and Jane's house," which has no commas, presents the same difficulty (or lack of it). Typically context makes the matter clear even on first reading (and in speech, intonation virtually always handles the matter). And the point remains: a scheme for clarity is rendered useless unless it is a *regular* scheme, that is, always and inevitably used--not applied "when there's a problem". The chief point of a scheme, such as use of commas after every member of a series, is that it *be* regular, so that we can infallibly rely on both its presence _and its absence_ to give us reliable information on the user's meaning. With serial commas, as with hyphenation, if we don't follow the rule rigorously, there is no rule. To say we will just use it "when needed" is to assume that we will always and ever, with unfailing 100% accuracy, spot each and every instance when some reader might develop confusion over our meaning. To say that such an approach is ridiculous is supererogation. Simple habitual use of a well-known, easy method is much the superior approach. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But that has nothing to do with the commas... But it does for me I'm afraid. "Peter, Paul, and Mary's songs" I stutter over. "Peter, Paul and Mary's songs" I can read first time, given my vague recollection of some entity called "Peter, Paul and Mary". The presence of the comma looks to me as if the writer's deliberately trying to make "Mary's songs" into a separate item. >... and everything to do with > the genitive form of grouped sequential nouns. A reference to "John [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > is supererogation. Simple habitual use of a well-known, easy method is > much the superior approach. > > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Mary". The presence of the comma looks to me as if the writer's > deliberately trying to make "Mary's songs" into a separate item. I repeat that the comma is not the issue. Suppose the reference were to "the songs performed by Peter, Paul, and Mary at their last concert." Any stutter? If you're going to stutter over every multiple-noun genitive form, you'd best have nothing whatever to do with the business or legal worlds, in which castings like "Dewey, Cheatham, & Howe's motion was denied by the judge" or "Throckmorton, Thistledown, and Higgenbotham's sale starts tomorrow" are common stuff. [Incidentally, at least in the U.S., law firms tend to eschew the serial comma, which--at least to me--always makes their names look quite strange.] >> > [...] >> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >to "the songs performed by Peter, Paul, and Mary at their last >concert." Any stutter? Sorry, but yes. It sounds like three acts, not a trio. >If you're going to stutter over every multiple-noun genitive form, >you'd best have nothing whatever to do with the business or legal >worlds, in which castings like "Dewey, Cheatham, & Howe's motion was >denied by the judge" or "Throckmorton, Thistledown, and Higgenbotham's >sale starts tomorrow" are common stuff. They are? >[Incidentally, at least in the U.S., law firms tend to eschew the >serial comma, which--at least to me--always makes their names look >quite strange.] Oh, they aren't. You had me confused for a minute there, Eric. SignatureRoss Howard > >I repeat that the comma is not the issue. Suppose the reference were > >to "the songs performed by Peter, Paul, and Mary at their last > >concert." Any stutter? > > Sorry, but yes. It sounds like three acts, not a trio. And "the songs performed by Peter and Paul and Mary" is somehow very different? As Count Basie famously said, "One more once": the comma is not the issue. > > > [...] > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I repeat that the comma is not the issue. As I have explained, I find the phrase more difficult to read with the comma than without. > Suppose the reference were > to "the songs performed by Peter, Paul, and Mary at their last > concert." Any stutter? Yes. It's exactly the same effect. My natural reading is to try to make "and Mary at their last concert" into a separate clause. Then I realise that this doesn't work and I have to try again. The effect of the second comma to me is the same as in the sentence: "The songs were performed by Peter, and Mary collected money in a hat". > If you're going to stutter over every multiple-noun genitive form, > you'd best have nothing whatever to do with the business or legal [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > serial comma, which--at least to me--always makes their names look > quite strange.] >>Is it acceptable to have a foot in both camps without being >>inconsistent? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Huh? This makes no sense at all to me. What's confusing about it? > Do you not read as much of a pause after "Peter" as after "Paul"? There is no pause. SignatureRob Bannister > >> My wife and I were both taught to insert commas between all > >> items in a list, including the final item preceded by a [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > go together almost as an idiom: "Tom, Dick, and Harry" and "masculine, > feminine, and neuter" are just prissy, I can't see your objection to "masculine, feminine, and neuter" or "Tom, Dick, and Harry", though idiom probably allows "every Tom Dick and Harry". > but "bacon, lettuce, and tomato > sandwich" and "Peter, Paul, and Mary's songs" are ghastly. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > serial-comma user, but for some reason I find a plethora of hyphens a > lot less irritating than an unnecessary peppering of commas.) I think you're just an evangelical. We fundamentalists write "bacon-lettuce-and-tomato sandwich" (or "BLT"). I'm with Franke on "Peter Paul and Mary". SignatureJerry Friedman >> My wife and I were both taught to insert commas between all >> items in a list, including the final item preceded by a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > a matter of wishing to be consistent with my punctuation, unlike the > othersiders, who could not care less about being careless. I tend to leave it out if the list is followed by another clause. It appears less cluttered to me that way: "I had salmon, potatoes and salad for dinner, accompanied by a fine Belgian beer." 2006-11-06 <Xns9873B72691F9Fdont@139.175.55.249>, >> My wife and I were both taught to insert commas between all >> items in a list, including the final item preceded by a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > a matter of wishing to be consistent with my punctuation, unlike the > othersiders, who could not care less about being careless. Even if it's not required, leaving it off can create some confusing (and sometimes humorous) misreadings. The classic example is "My parents, Ayn Rand and God". > Even if it's not required, leaving it off can create some confusing (and > sometimes humorous) misreadings. The classic example is "My parents, > Ayn Rand and God". Classic example, but adding a comma doesn't disambiguate it at all. SignatureRob Bannister > > Even if it's not required, leaving it off can create some confusing (and > > sometimes humorous) misreadings. The classic example is "My parents, > > Ayn Rand and God". > > Classic example, but adding a comma doesn't disambiguate it at all. Surely you jest. A comma would make clear that God isn't one of the parents. SignatureBob Lieblich Let's not get into religion > > > Even if it's not required, leaving it off can create > > > some confusing (and sometimes humorous) misreadings. > > > The classic example is "My parents, Ayn Rand and God". > > Classic example, but adding a comma doesn't disambiguate > > it at all. > Surely you jest. A comma would make clear that God isn't > one of the parents. But examples can be found, or contrived, to show greater ambiguity *with* the comma. Mark Israel* has We considered Miss Roberts for the roles of Marjorie, David's mother, and Louise. That has the possible interpretation that there are only two roles, and Marjorie is David's mother. Without the comma it seems clear there are three roles: We considered Miss Roberts for the roles of Marjorie, David's mother and Louise. In fact, it now occurs to me that the classic example above can be somewhat modified to get Thanks to my mother, Ayn Rand, and God. Is Ayn Rand the writer's mother, or is the writer thanking three separate entities? Much as I prefer to use the serial comma, I have to admit there are some persuasive logical arguments against it. One is that the commas in a series can be thought of as replacing "and"s. "A and B and C and D" with the first two "and"s replaced becomes "A, B, C and D". There's no comma after "C" because the "and" is still there. Another argument is that when there are only two items in the series, there is no comma. "A and B", not "A, and B". I don't know of any logical argument in favor of the serial comma. Ambiguity can be greater either with or without it. I'm left with saying I greatly prefer to use the serial comma and I will steadfastly continue to use it for the duration, recalling the sometime quoted slogan "There's no reason for it; it's just our policy". * http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxabandc.html > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > We considered Miss Roberts for the roles of > Marjorie, David's mother and Louise. Not really. Not if the writer is one of those who drops the comma after the year (November 7, 2006 is midterm election day) and after state names (Omaha, Nebraska is where I come from). As Eric Walker has pointed out, when a convention is not consistently used, it cannot be called a rule, and there's no more a grammatical reason to use commas than there is to use spaces between words; the conventions are there to provide clarity whenever possible. If the conventions don't work in a particular instance, some other method of making things clear has to be used. In this case, it seems necessary to add "two" or "three", depending on the number of roles. > In fact, it now occurs to me that the classic example above > can be somewhat modified to get [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Another argument is that when there are only two items in > the series, there is no comma. "A and B", not "A, and B". If there are only two items, it's a "pair", not a "series". I don't know of any two-item series in any context, except for this straw-man series that some people have created to argue against the serial comma. > I don't know of any logical argument in favor of the serial > comma. The only useful logical argument in a debate on this kind of usage is that everything has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, even when one does or does not use the serial comma religiously. > Ambiguity can be greater either with or without it. The only logical argument in favor of using it on a case-by-case basis. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." 2006-11-07 <qq31l2pg0blp76qhkbpdjgiolqd86ica8r@4ax.com>, > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > We considered Miss Roberts for the roles of > Marjorie, David's mother and Louise. Is no more clear. In fact, the only thing you can do to make it more clear is to use a semicolon for the case when there are two roles. I suppose for three roles you could _reorder_ it to "Marjorie, Louise, and David's mother", but that can't be generalized. (I suppose you could use semicolons all around. But that would be ugly.) > In fact, it now occurs to me that the classic example above > can be somewhat modified to get [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is Ayn Rand the writer's mother, or is the writer thanking > three separate entities? Hmm. Actually, i'm not so sure now that "reorder to fix it" can't be generalized. I wonder if it can be proven one way or the other. > I don't know of any logical argument in favor of the serial > comma. Ambiguity can be greater either with or without it. Semicolons all around it is! Or you could use parentheses for the cases that _aren't_ separate items... which IMO would be even uglier. > I'm left with saying I greatly prefer to use the serial > comma and I will steadfastly continue to use it for the > duration, recalling the sometime quoted slogan "There's no > reason for it; it's just our policy". > 2006-11-07 <qq31l2pg0blp76qhkbpdjgiolqd86ica8r@4ax.com>, > >> > > Even if it's not required, leaving it off can create > >> > > some confusing (and sometimes humorous) misreadings. > >> > > The classic example is "My parents, Ayn Rand and God". > >> > Classic example, but adding a comma doesn't disambiguate > >> > it at all. > >> Surely you jest. A comma would make clear that God isn't > >> one of the parents. > > But examples can be found, or contrived, to show greater > > ambiguity *with* the comma. Mark Israel* has > > We considered Miss Roberts for the roles of > > Marjorie, David's mother, and Louise. > > That has the possible interpretation that there are only two > > roles, and Marjorie is David's mother. Without the comma it > > seems clear there are three roles: > > We considered Miss Roberts for the roles of > > Marjorie, David's mother and Louise. > Is no more clear. > In fact, the only thing you can do to make it more clear is to use > a semicolon for the case when there are two roles. I suppose for three > roles you could _reorder_ it to "Marjorie, Louise, and David's mother", > but that can't be generalized. > (I suppose you could use semicolons all around. But that would be ugly.) > > In fact, it now occurs to me that the classic example above > > can be somewhat modified to get > > Thanks to my mother, Ayn Rand, and God. > > Is Ayn Rand the writer's mother, or is the writer thanking > > three separate entities? > Hmm. Actually, i'm not so sure now that "reorder to fix it" can't be > generalized. I wonder if it can be proven one way or the other. It's often easier to disprove something, using a counterexample for example, than to prove it. You could start with The cast comprised Mary, Jane's mother, Dick, Joe's father, and Sam. Can you fix that by reordering? Even if you try Jane's mother, Joe's father, Mary, Dick, and Sam it's not utterly impossible for Joe's father to be called Mary. But if you don't think it's possible, try Joe's father, Dick's father, Sam, Pete, and Ed. > > I don't know of any logical argument in favor of the serial > > comma. Ambiguity can be greater either with or without it. > Semicolons all around it is! > Or you could use parentheses for the cases that _aren't_ separate > items... which IMO would be even uglier. Having a special convention for the ones that aren't separate and an ordinary convention for the ones that are doesn't work, because it relies on the reader knowing that the writer will never use the ordinary convention for cases covered by the special rule. In general the reader won't even know there is a special rule, let alone know the writer might use one. > > I'm left with saying I greatly prefer to use the serial > > comma and I will steadfastly continue to use it for the > > duration, recalling the sometime quoted slogan "There's no > > reason for it; it's just our policy". Let me now comment on someone's recommending upthread that each case should be judged by its need and punctuated accordingly. In my opinion, that's bad advice. A paramount rule should be to choose a convention and stick with it. Then in the cases where ambiguity can't be avoided using the chosen convention, change the wording. >counterexample for example, than to prove it. You could >start with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Can you fix that by reordering? Indubitably. The cast comprised Jane's mother Mary, Joe's father Dick, and Sam. or The cast comprised Mary, Jane's mother; Dick, Joe's father; and Sam. or if mother and father are distinct: The cast comprised Mary, Dick, Sam, Jane's mother, and Joe's father. (reverse the order of the last two if "Sam" is "Samantha" rather than "Samuel"). The last one would be *spoken* with a longer pause after "Sam", but it would be an error to write it with a semicolon there. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >But examples can be found, or contrived, to show greater >ambiguity *with* the comma. Mark Israel* has [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >That has the possible interpretation that there are only two >roles, and Marjorie is David's mother. This is clearly an erroneous interpretation. If that were what had been meant, it would have been written: We considered Miss Roberts for the roles of Marjorie (David's mother) and Louise. or Marjorie---David's mother---and Louise. or Louise and David's mother, Marjorie. >Without the comma it seems clear there are three roles: > > We considered Miss Roberts for the roles of > Marjorie, David's mother and Louise. Not to me it doesn't. This lists two roles, "Marjorie" and "David's mother and Louise" (perhaps they are in different scenes), and then suddenly ends without introducing the third role that one is expecting. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >>>Even if it's not required, leaving it off can create some confusing (and >>>sometimes humorous) misreadings. The classic example is "My parents, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Surely you jest. A comma would make clear that God isn't one of the > parents. No, it looks as if Ayn Rand is in parenthesis, as if that were the name of the parents. Not as bad as a plural noun would be (My parents, the Smiths, and God), but still confusing. SignatureRob Bannister The Robert Bannister entity posted thusly: >>>>Even if it's not required, leaving it off can create some confusing (and >>>>sometimes humorous) misreadings. The classic example is "My parents, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >of the parents. Not as bad as a plural noun would be (My parents, the >Smiths, and God), but still confusing. I gather we are ignoring the subject line, which would trivialize all examples to something like, "Every Tom, Tom, and Tom." > The Robert Bannister entity posted thusly: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > trivialize all examples to something like, "Every Tom, Tom, and > Tom." Nah. Every tom-tom Tom. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.