-
Basic Writing questions is not a crit forum. All crits belong in Share Your Work
A comma question
- Thread starter Christracy19
- Start date
- Status
Hit and miss Oxford comma or journalistic no-comma is the worst. What a way to confuse readers.
I use the Oxford comma--always have, even a decade or so ago when some made silly claims it was wrong.
For my clients: I'm okay if they go with it or without it, just so the use or non-use is consistent.
as mentioned this would confuse me, as I can't read your intent so I can't tell if the inability to follow one set of rules or the other is a matter of deliberation or ignorance on your part.....
I would use it, but I'm partial to the Oxford comma. Technically, I don't think you need it.
Also, I don't think there should be a comma before so in this instance. You put a comma before so when you're using it as a conjunction to link two independent clauses (like and or but). In this case, though, you're using it to link an independent clause and a dependent clause (because it's actually "so that," but you've removed "that" for readability.
May be wrong about this, but it seems like the first comma can be done away with:
Bob needed to go to the grocery store for milk, so he could get rid of his milk cows, save a bunch of money, and not wonder about how healthy the milk actually was.
This is, actually a good example of when the Oxford may be preferred. When you have phrases, rather than just single words. The comma makes the sentence a bit easier to interpret. There are other sentences that get this across even more. And yes about "consistency," of use. That's almost always the way to go.
crossposted with RWM ^
I find that the lack of an oxford comma jars me like marmalade to the forehead.
Then again, so does incorrect use of (or lack thereof) whom. And starting sentences with a conjunction.
Then again, so does incorrect use of (or lack thereof) whom. And starting sentences with a conjunction.
Technically, that isn't a sentence, so I guess you're okay.
But I've never seen why you shouldn't start a sentence with a conjunction. You don't want to do it constantly, but sometimes it suits the rhythm of the writing better, especially if you want to emphasize something. For that, I find a one-sentence paragraph starting with a conjunction can be very effective.
I would have thought it was pretty clear? If you need to use an Oxford comma, you use it. If you don't, you don't.
If we're getting into optional here that brings another one of my old questions. Do you guys use forward, or forwards?
Clear to me? I always need the Oxford comma, so I always use it? Why are we putting question marks behind statements.
Don't get this backward: the basketball player closest to the basket is the short forward. The next one out is the power forward. Together, they are forwards (plural). As one moves farther toward center court, the players are the center and guards.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2013
- Messages
- 216
- Reaction score
- 20
- Location
- Somewhere in time and space
- Website
- aleighrose.webs.com
How is one comma any uglier than another? Not using the Oxford means horrible writing at times because the sentence won't say what you want it to say. There;s no way to avoid this. You just can't link some things with "and" without saying something you didn't mean to say. Since the Oxford is mandatory for clarity with some sentences, why not just use it all the time?
Even some British styleguides say the Oxford/serial comma is mandatory. Amd the Oxford University Press Style Manual say use it, of course.
It may not be used quite as often in Britain as it is here, but it's still used pretty darned often, thank God.
I'll give you an example of what I mean.
"We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin"
This sentence is ambiguous, so you need an Oxford comma.
"I like apples, bananas and oranges."
I don't really see how anyone could misunderstand that sentence, so why use an Oxford comma?
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Technically, that isn't a sentence, so I guess you're okay.
But I've never seen why you shouldn't start a sentence with a conjunction. You don't want to do it constantly, but sometimes it suits the rhythm of the writing better, especially if you want to emphasize something. For that, I find a one-sentence paragraph starting with a conjunction can be very effective.
It can be effective, but more often than not it just attracts my attention, and makes me think "Was that really necessary?"
The worst offenders are when the sentence would be perfectly fine if the full stop were swapped with a comma; then I know it wasn't necessary.
so why use an Oxford comma? Consistency. (1) Because in longer sentences, readers may become confused by switching back and forth. (2) Because the writing appears unprofessional.
Different strokes for different writers makes sense. The same writer being inconsistent about the Oxford and other commas makes chaos.
In reading lots of books on both sides of the Atlantic, I note UK writers tend to write towards, backwards, and forwards.
Again, no problem when the choice is consistent. Here in the states, the majority seem to favor toward, backward, and forward.
It's when both are mixed helter skelter that the book looks amateurish and poorly edited, in my opinion.
"We invited the stripper, JFK, and Stalin"
The OC may denote JFK as an appositive and mean that the stripper is JFK.
Instead, "We invited the stripper, JFK and Stalin" is much clearer.
- Status