Ah, the comma. Such a versatile punctuation mark. One could talk about it for days on end, though I have to imagine there are better things to do with one’s time. For now, though one particularly intriguing usage is worth discussing. I’d like to talk about the serial comma. It is also called the Oxford comma, and, according to Wikipedia, the Harvard comma, but I’ve never heard anyone refer to it by the latter name.* For the sake of this discussion, I’ll just call it the serial comma, since using either of the other two names would serve to embolden the arrogant douchebags who attend either of the pretentious snotty universities in the alternative names. (Perhaps at a later date I will discuss my hatred for the idea that going to a big-name school makes you better than everyone else, even though if you’re smart enough to go to a school like that, you’ll probably do well in life no matter where you go to college.)
The serial comma is the comma that comes before and in a series such as “a, b, and c.” Unfortunately a war has been waged upon this poor comma by the forces of idiocy. When I was growing up I was always taught to use the serial comma, but unfortunately most of the English-speaking world’s newspapers and magazines omit the serial comma, ostensibly for reasons of “space.” Space? Please. Most lines of newspaper text could easily contain a few extra characters–rarely is a line completely full. Perhaps the only legitimate excuse a person could have for so desperately needing to eliminate a character would be in a tweet or facebook status, but even then, a good crisp edit should get you down beneath the character limit, and if it doesn’t, you’re probably typing more about your life than anyone else cares to read. So get rid of your narcissistic need to fill the world in on all the minutiae of your life instead of getting rid of the serial comma.
The only other reasonable argument against the serial comma is that there are rare instances in which shitty writers may create ambiguity from their own carelessness. Take Wikipedia’s example of a hypothetical book dedication: “To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God.” Yes, this is ambiguous. And yes, getting rid of the Oxford comma removes the ambiguity. Or you can just change around the order, moron. “To God, Ayn Rand, and my mother” works much better.
On the other hand, using the serial comma often removes ambiguity. Changing the previous example slightly, we could have “To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.” No serial comma there, and what results? Ambiguity! Add the comma back in and you’re good to go. Similarly, let us take an example from this website: “Rebecca was proud of her new muffin recipes: blueberry, peanut butter and chocolate chip and coconut.”** Look at all those ands hanging out with no commas to tell things apart! Who knows what crazy sort of muffins this Rebecca lady is cooking up‽ (Yeah, that’s right, I just used an interrobang.)
Now, you could just take my word for it that the serial comma is more likely to resolve ambiguity than create it. But that’s a difficult question to settle, one which would necessitate the analysis of a massive corpus. So we should try to find some other grounds upon which we can reasonably demand that everyone will submit to using the serial comma.
I could just say, “Because I said so,” but as any disobedient six-year-old knows, that’s a sucky answer. I could also just say “Because Strunk and White say so,” or “Because The Writing Handbook says so,”*** but those are ultimately variants of the above. So we need some reasons. First of all, it sounds better. When we speak, we set off each item in a series with a pause. We don’t rush through the last item. While writing and speaking are two different means of communicating, any sentence you write should sound good when said aloud. Getting rid of the serial comma hinders euphony unless you add the comma and its pause back in (as any sensible person would when reading aloud). The second reason is that when we use semicolons to separate items in a series, we always include a semicolon before the final conjunction. As the two punctuation marks are serving the same function–separating items in a list–why on earth shouldn’t we apply the same rules to both? And believe me, you do not want to omit the final semicolon in a series which necessitates the use of that punctuation mark. The end result will surely be a grisly, disgusting train wreck of words and conjunctions and punctuation piling together in an arrhythmical mess.
In short, the serial comma is a glorious, logical, and beautiful thing, and those who do not use it should be beaten, waterboarded, and executed in as grisly a fashion as possible.
*Ironically, the University of Oxford’s own style guide recommends against the “Oxford” comma, while the Oxford Style Manual, which I assume is Oxford University Press’s style guide, heartily endorses the serial comma. Go figure.
**I’m using this example instead of Wikipedia’s, because googling and looking at two things makes me look less lazy than if I just grab everything off Wikipedia.
***Rule D32, in case you’re a Jesuit student or alumnus following along. If you didn’t go to Jesuit, you probably never got a copy of The Writing Handbook, but you should.
I have a shocking confession: I was taught to omit the serial comma. I don’t remember when or where. Perhaps it had something to do with the “Harvard comma” thing, since I went to Harvard’s rival school– a fact that hopefully doesn’t automatically make me an arrogant douchebag. Anyway, my coworker has been working at undoing my serial-comma-omitting sins, and I think I’m coming around, but I can’t guarantee I won’t slip up from time to time. Please don’t hate me.
It’s okay, Trina. Admitting your problem is the first step. And I know you’re a grammar Nazi too (I think I remember a post of yours about “it’s” and “its,”), so I’m sure you’ll do just fine.
I agree that the serial comma should be used to avoid ambiguity when necessary. (Your cookie sentence above is a perfect example.) But that’s the only time.
Think about it: When used in a series, a comma effectively replaces the word “and” between each object. So, instead of writing “he ate a roast and a kumquat and a bag of popcorn and a Powerbar before the big race,” we simply write “he ate a roast, a kumquat, a bag of popcorn and a Powerbar before the big race.” Since the commas are replacing “and” everywhere else, using the comma before it is simply redundant. Most respected style manuals typically discourage redundancy.
Yes, I’m a trained journalist who follows Associated Press (aka newspaper) style, which advises against using the serial comma unless needed for clarification. That doesn’t make me or others who omit it a “force of idiocy.” It makes us clear, efficient and concise writers.
And as far as your “space” argument goes, obviously a few extra commas will not take up a lot of “space.” However, one of the basic tenants of AP style is to abbreviate and condense when appropriate to save space. Most of the time, publications have a limited “news hole” for articles. Alone, spelling out all numbers below 100, using full state names instead of abbreviations, inserting unnecessary punctuation, etc., seem harmless. Together, though, they will start to eat up a lot of this precious space, and most publications would rather use it for actual news.
You call the serial comma redundant. When looking at a typical case in isolation, it is redundant. But a policy of consistent usage will serve to prevent ambiguity in other cases. (Yes, there will be some cases where a serial comma causes confusion. Yes, careful rewriting can usually remove any sort ambiguity.) But there are situations where it would be very difficult to make something clear without a serial comma; following that, for the sake of consistency, we should use it everywhere, and readers will then know to expect a serial comma and will parse sentences accordingly. (Though, of course, good writing strives to be as clear as possible. Usually.)
As to the AP Stylebook, if it cares so much about space, why use lengthy state abbreviations instead of the postal ones, which are now familiar to virtually everyone? But I digress. As the various forms of print media become even less relevant, what the AP Stylebook says will matter even less than it does now.
In any case, even if you defend the role of the serial comma in space-sensitive contexts, I see no reason to omit it in other forms of writing. Using the serial comma won’t make good writing any less clear, efficient, or concise.
P.S. Thank you for your intelligent, well-reasoned, and only mildly condescending reply.