The Oxford comma is back
Commas. Ah, the bane of every writer's existence. Even veteran writers have had to argue, explain, and justify their use--or non use--of the comma.
As a writing coach for hundreds of business people over the last decade, I can tell you what I think. The comma is the most overused piece of punctuation in the English language.
Not only that, it is the one piece of punctuation that has the most subjective decisions surrounding it.
Grammar is not all black and white. It is not always cut and dry. We call this style. And it makes the Type A personalities groan. "No," they say. "It's either right or wrong."
No, it's writing.
In future posts I will share with you the black-and-white rules of commas (because they do exist, really). But today's post is about breaking news about a certain use of the comma. (Who'd have thought punctuation was news-worthy?)
One constant argument around the little curclicue on the baseline involves what writers call commas in a list. Here are two ways to punctuate the same sentence:
Half the people out there read these sentences and say, "Oh, the top one is right." And the other half say, "No, the bottom one is right." They are passionate and unwavering in their responses.
And they're both right. Because this is not a grammar issue, it's a style issue. One style book will tell you to put it in (like E.B.White's The Elements of Style) and another will tell you to leave it out (like the AP Stylebook). I love both books.
Well, now in my writing seminars I can't tell both factions they're right. Now it's not so clear cut. To understand the confusion, we have to go back in time.
Sentence Number One (with the comma before the conjunction) is more traditional. The comma in this place is called The Oxford Comma. (I learned this pesky comma had a name in the fabulous book Eats, Shoots & Leaves.)
If Oxford makes you think of centuries-old, ivy covered buildings in England, you have the right idea. It is formal. It's old school.
As the language evolved (dare I say became more American-ized?) writers began dropping this last comma. Newspapers, written by trained journalists and edited by grammar and style freaks, led the charge, and contemporary writers followed the trend that less punction is better.
There was a time (circa Ernest Hemingway) when American writers wrote complicated sentences, packed with punctuation. Then we relaxed a bit, became contemporary, and the Oxford comma became the exception rather than the norm.
The nuns taught me in grammar school the Oxford comma was standard English usage. My journalism professors in college taught me to drop it.
Enter the lawyers. (Shakespeare said it best, "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.")
There was a legal case involving an inheritance. (This happened recently. I'm sure I could Google it and get all the details, but you could do that, too.) The exact details are not important, but in essence, the will was written something like this (I've inserted my siblings' names to protect identities that I don't even know):
I bequeth $90 million to be divided by my grandchildren Kevin, Joan and Peter.
No Oxford comma. Because it would only make sense that the rich grandma would want $30 million to go to Kevin, $30 million to Joan, and $30 million to Peter. That's fair, right?
Well, you don't know Kevin. He got a hot shot lawyer and contested. Said the granny all along meant for him to have $45 million and Joan and Pete to split $45 million. After all, his lawyer argued, the placement of the commas clearly separates Kevin from the other two and makes Joan and Peter a unit.
Go ahead and gasp. I did.
But here's the real wind-sucker. The courts agreed. Kevin got $45 million.
I don't really know what happened to the members of that family. But I do know that the Oxford comma has now been adopted by the Associated Press Stylebook. To a writer, particularly a journalist, this is the Bible. This is where we turn for answers. (www.apstylebook.com)
But, I also know not every paper is putting that extra comma in there. Papers can, and do, make their own style rules, even if they oppose AP. (Because of this, I pray for their salvation every night.)
As for me, I'm trying to change AGAIN. I always told my seminar participants and clients, "This is not a grammar issue. It's a style issue. Both ways are correct. You just have to pick one and use it all the time. Consistency is the key."
The rule I'm using for myself is that if the list of items has any legal implications at all (say for marketing writers who are composing sweepstakes rules), I am using the Oxford comma. But I can't sacrifice consistency. So I stick with the Oxford comma through that entire document.
You will have to come up with your own style on this issue--and stick with it. But you might be well advised to consult a lawyer first.
Are you glad the Oxford comma is back? If you never used it, will you? Let me know and I'll share the controversy in a future post.
As a writing coach for hundreds of business people over the last decade, I can tell you what I think. The comma is the most overused piece of punctuation in the English language.
Not only that, it is the one piece of punctuation that has the most subjective decisions surrounding it.
Grammar is not all black and white. It is not always cut and dry. We call this style. And it makes the Type A personalities groan. "No," they say. "It's either right or wrong."
No, it's writing.
In future posts I will share with you the black-and-white rules of commas (because they do exist, really). But today's post is about breaking news about a certain use of the comma. (Who'd have thought punctuation was news-worthy?)
One constant argument around the little curclicue on the baseline involves what writers call commas in a list. Here are two ways to punctuate the same sentence:
- My favorite typefaces are Palatino, Minion, and Albertina.
- My favorite typefaces are Palatino, Minion and Albertina.
Half the people out there read these sentences and say, "Oh, the top one is right." And the other half say, "No, the bottom one is right." They are passionate and unwavering in their responses.
And they're both right. Because this is not a grammar issue, it's a style issue. One style book will tell you to put it in (like E.B.White's The Elements of Style) and another will tell you to leave it out (like the AP Stylebook). I love both books.
Well, now in my writing seminars I can't tell both factions they're right. Now it's not so clear cut. To understand the confusion, we have to go back in time.
Sentence Number One (with the comma before the conjunction) is more traditional. The comma in this place is called The Oxford Comma. (I learned this pesky comma had a name in the fabulous book Eats, Shoots & Leaves.)
If Oxford makes you think of centuries-old, ivy covered buildings in England, you have the right idea. It is formal. It's old school.
As the language evolved (dare I say became more American-ized?) writers began dropping this last comma. Newspapers, written by trained journalists and edited by grammar and style freaks, led the charge, and contemporary writers followed the trend that less punction is better.
There was a time (circa Ernest Hemingway) when American writers wrote complicated sentences, packed with punctuation. Then we relaxed a bit, became contemporary, and the Oxford comma became the exception rather than the norm.
The nuns taught me in grammar school the Oxford comma was standard English usage. My journalism professors in college taught me to drop it.
Enter the lawyers. (Shakespeare said it best, "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.")
There was a legal case involving an inheritance. (This happened recently. I'm sure I could Google it and get all the details, but you could do that, too.) The exact details are not important, but in essence, the will was written something like this (I've inserted my siblings' names to protect identities that I don't even know):
I bequeth $90 million to be divided by my grandchildren Kevin, Joan and Peter.
No Oxford comma. Because it would only make sense that the rich grandma would want $30 million to go to Kevin, $30 million to Joan, and $30 million to Peter. That's fair, right?
Well, you don't know Kevin. He got a hot shot lawyer and contested. Said the granny all along meant for him to have $45 million and Joan and Pete to split $45 million. After all, his lawyer argued, the placement of the commas clearly separates Kevin from the other two and makes Joan and Peter a unit.
Go ahead and gasp. I did.
But here's the real wind-sucker. The courts agreed. Kevin got $45 million.
I don't really know what happened to the members of that family. But I do know that the Oxford comma has now been adopted by the Associated Press Stylebook. To a writer, particularly a journalist, this is the Bible. This is where we turn for answers. (www.apstylebook.com)
But, I also know not every paper is putting that extra comma in there. Papers can, and do, make their own style rules, even if they oppose AP. (Because of this, I pray for their salvation every night.)
As for me, I'm trying to change AGAIN. I always told my seminar participants and clients, "This is not a grammar issue. It's a style issue. Both ways are correct. You just have to pick one and use it all the time. Consistency is the key."
The rule I'm using for myself is that if the list of items has any legal implications at all (say for marketing writers who are composing sweepstakes rules), I am using the Oxford comma. But I can't sacrifice consistency. So I stick with the Oxford comma through that entire document.
You will have to come up with your own style on this issue--and stick with it. But you might be well advised to consult a lawyer first.
Are you glad the Oxford comma is back? If you never used it, will you? Let me know and I'll share the controversy in a future post.
posted by Joan McCain at 8:09 PM
<< Home