Talk:Serial comma/Archive 2

Jam, jam, jam all night long
I didn't know what BLT was when I first came here, but regardless, in the sentence "My favourite types of sandwiches are BLT, ham, peanut butter and jam and cream cheese." the last sandwich could also be interpreted as PBJCC, which is a third interpretation. People sometimes have weird tastes, you know. Btw, my creative solution would be to use 'n' here, since that is closer how people would pronounce and stress it when spoken. "peanut butter'n'jam and cream cheese". What do you think? 惑乱 分からん 13:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This would not be proper English. Although 'n occurs in speech and in certain company names meaning and, I don't think it is a valid "solution" in this situation, in any case not one that I would be comfortable with promoting in an encyclopedia. A better solution, if you really want the sentence to include a sandwich made of peanut butter, jam, and cream cheese, would possibly be "My favourite types of sandwiches are BLT, ham sandwich, and sandwich with peanut butter, jam, and cream cheese" or something along those lines. --- Andkaha(talk) 13:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, "peanut butter'n'jam and cream cheese" are two sandwiches, one single sandwich would of course be "peanut butter'n'jam'n'cream cheese". 惑乱 分からん 13:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking this discussion seriously anymore. --- Andkaha(talk) 13:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever, just language philosophizing... 惑乱 分からん 13:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree; in order for the last phrase to be interpreted as PBJCC, wouldn't you need an "and" before "peanut butter"? Kimpire 07:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, nice of you to answer, while I just have rambled around in sillyness, here... You might be right, though... 惑乱 分からん 15:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh. If you wanted to say one of your favorite sandwiches is a PBJCC, along with ham and BLT sandwiches, you'd write: "My favorite types of sandwiches are BLT; ham; and peanut butter, jam, and cream cheese." That's using the serial comma, of course. That's just using the words you gave as an example, though. There much easier ways of communicating the exact same message, both verbally and written. ~ UBeR 22:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's say we have alphabetic ingredients we can put in a sandwich (A, B, ...), what if I said "My favourite types of sandwiches are A, B, C and D and E."? Am I saying I like A; B; C; D+E; or A;B;C+D;E? Helios 20:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, Helios. That's the very thing we've been talking about here for some time. If there are ingredients A, B, C, ..., and these could be used separately or together, then it is simply indeterminate what someone means when she writes "A, B, C and D and E". She could mean "A, B, C and D, and E" (which itself is generally considered to be clear, because of what we take to be a serial comma), or "A, B, C, and D and E". This second is still not clearly interpretable. If we know that someone writing it consistently uses a serial comma, however, we know that she means [A], [B], [C], and [D & E]. If we don't know that, the following interpretation is among the possibilities: [A & B & C & D] and [E], since the writer may be using a serial comma before the first and, but omitting a courtesy non-serial comma before the second and. (Note that "A, B, C, and D, and E" strangely, but pretty well unambiguously, means [A & B & C & D] and [E].) The real trouble is that we rarely have such information about what conventions the writer follows, and how consistently. Myself, I'm a strong advocate of uniform and consistent use of the serial comma – for exactly the sort of reason you have raised. But many feel differently; and the article must be even-handed. (I'm a Pisces Dragon too, by the way! A bit older than you.) –Noetica 22:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible tables
I wondered if creating tables would help clarify things. For instance:

The first two phrases could illustrate the sentence "If the reader is unaware of which convention is being used, both sentences are always ambiguous." --Cedderstk 21:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Position of Strunk & White's The Elements of Style
The Elements of Style has been moved to the section opposing mandatory use of the Oxford comma. I believe this move to be in error. The quoted text states

In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last.

Note that this says 'last' term, not penultimate term. That is, it proposes 'A, B, and C', because there are three terms and B is not the last, even if the comma does not resolve an ambiguity in this particular case. This is what is meant by mandatory or enforced usage. It also makes the distinction between lists of two items and of three or more, which is characteristic of the mandatory Oxford/Harvard/serial comma rule. Strunk & White's simultaneous (non-controversial) advocacy of commas before and after parenthetical clauses is the second source of ambiguity mentioned in the article; this does not mean that both rules were not intentional.

Strunk & White is usually listed as one of the major authorities proposing mandatory use. One of the others, Fowler's (1926), has a slightly different way of putting it:

The only rule that will obviate such uncertainties is that after every item, including the last unless a heavier stop is needed for independent reasons, the comma should be used (Every man, woman, & child, was killed;  They killed every man, woman, & child.). (emboldening added)

The issue of a comma after the entire list, as advocated by Fowler, is a separate issue to the 'serial' comma discussed in the article. However, while we are on this subject, one of the sources linked to in this article is problematic:


 * Unclear Writing Example (no serial comma; subject noun is ambiguous): It was the time of the Elves, the Hobbits, the Dwarves and the Ents and one man led the hopeless assault on Mordor.


 * Who led the assault on Mordor? Was it the Ents and the one man? Was it just the one man?


 * Clear Writing Example (serial comma removes ambiguity): It was the time of the Elves, the Hobbits, the Dwarves, and the Ents and one man led the hopeless assault on Mordor.


 * This is much better. Now we can tell who led the assault on Mordor. See what the last comma does? It tells you that the Ents are part of that whole clause about whose time it was; now it's clear that it's the one man who led the assault on Mordor. (Good for the one man! Down with Mordor!) But this sentence could still be a bit more clear. It would be a better sentence if that poor, lonely conjunction that brings together the independent clauses had some help from a friendly comma to give them an element of separation: It was the time of the Elves, the Hobbits, the Dwarves, and the Ents, and one man led the hopeless assault on Mordor.
 * I don't know what the problem is here. None of these sentences pass muster under the rules of syntax I was taught in both grade school and college. When a list of greater than two items is used, a colon should precede the list. The completely unambiguous sentence should be punctuated as follows: "It was the time of: the Elves, the Hobbits, the Dwarves, and the Ents; and one man led the hopeless assault on Mordor.". Although proper grammar was never my strongest subject, that rule I do remember. I've also added a semi-colon to separate the two interconnected thoughts that were joined into a single run on sentence, and thus eliminated any possible ambiguity. Of course, American English grammar has plenty of self-contradictions. Perhaps it would be best to rewrite the rules of American grammar.--Celtic hackr (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So this author eventually adopts the position of Fowler in terminating the entire list with a comma in addition to the 'serial' comma. My opinion would be that since "X, Y, Z" is a valid form it is actually only the terminating comma that resolves the ambiguity, not the the Oxford/serial comma. --Cedderstk 04:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I confirmed this on http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/style2.html#2 204.11.125.133 05:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Other Languages' Approaches to this Issue
How is this matter resolved in other languages? Lisiate 23:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In German, it is usually not employed, though it's not specifically forbidden; I suppose in sentences like "Bekannte Zeichentrickfilme sind de:Aristocats, de:Bernard und Bianca, und de:Susi und Strolch." one could use it to make clear what the titles are, though one would be just as likely to simply put the titles in italics and leave the superfluous last comma out. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 09:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, in German using a comma before "und" is forbidden in an enumeration of "words of equal rank", as the Duden puts it. Meaning, you're only allowed to use a comma if there's some kind of insertion.--KagamiNoMiko 15:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In Spanish, the serial comma is always used.
 * No, it is never used, as can be read in the Spanish Academy's Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas -- Jacobo 10:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether comma is used or not depends more on taste, rather than grammatical rules. I, for one, use it interchangeably, depending on whether I'm following grammatical of phonetical coherence. Helios 19:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether you use it or not, it is not grammatically correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.17.50.91 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm currently in an editing class and we were told the same for French. I can look up what Grevisse says and report on it. Circeus 21:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Creating ambiguity" section example is wrong.
Suggested fix: the example "They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and a cook." is wrong and should be removed or replaced.

This example is meant to be a list with two items: the compound "Betty, a maid" and "a cook". In that case, the serial comma rule does not apply, since there are only two items. For instance, "I painted the house red and blue" has no comma, regardless of whether one adopts the serial comma rule or not. Only with three items is there a difference: "I painted the house red, white, and blue" or "I painted the house red, white and blue".

So if one is using the serial comma rule, the example sentence is unambiguous: it means that "Betty, a maid, and a cook" are three people.

If a third item is added, this doesn't really fix the example:

"They went to Oregon with Arnold, Betty, a maid, and a cook." It's true that with the serial comma the sentence is ambiguous. However, consider the same sentence without the serial comma: "They went to Oregon with Arnold, Betty, a maid and a cook." It's now ambiguous in a new way: "a maid and a cook" could both be attributes of betty, or "Betty, a maid" and "a cook" can be two people. This problem is alluded to in the text of the section. The section as a whole is therefore somewhat deceptive, unless someone can construct a reasonable case where the serial comma rule introduces ambiguity, and where its omission does not.

I am temporarily removing the "create ambiguity" line from the top of the main article. If somebody can replace this example with something that works, go ahead and add that back. 71.146.152.48 17:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Betty, a maid, and a cook" is ambiguous. The ambiguity is admittedly not CREATED by the serial comma, but the serial comma does not resolve it. And it is still ambiguous regardless of whether the reader knows if the serial comma is being used. Either (a) the commas round "a maid" are parenthetical in function, in a list of two, or (b) they are serial commas in a list of three. So it can mean either (a) "Betty (who is a maid) and a cook" or (b) "(i) Betty, (ii) a maid, (iii) a cook." I am going to reinstate a version of the "creates ambiguity" sentence - toned down a bit to say "does not resolve...". Gnusmas 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * May I jump in here and spill my two cents on the page? That example would not be used in speech and probably would be avoided in writing. Most writers want their writing to sound good when spoken aloud, and that example above is ambiguous when spoken, unless the speaker adopts his own punctuation. One can easily resolve the ambiguity by revising it to: "Betty (a maid) and a cook" (this time showing the parentheses) or "Betty, who is a maid, and a cook" or "The maid Betty and a cook". As with this example, the oxford comma convention is not a steep slide to ambiguity. Even without the oxford comma convention the example above still looks suspiciously like a three item list. As described above, the oxford comma does not appear in this example, and so the example misleads the reader. Rintrah 02:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the abimguity is not created by the serial comma and since neither the presence nor the absence of the serial comma solve the amibuity of the sentence, the example should be stricken as it is not trully germane to the serial comma discussion. Additionally, I fail to see why a person can't really be both a maid and a cook.  Although such a practice would have been highly unusual even as little as 70 years ago, people today tend to have less servants and servants tend to fill multiple roles -- as pointed out as "recently" as "The New Emily Post's Etiquette" from 1975.  As such, I will be removing this ambiguous ambiguity from the main article. Banaticus 04:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, three different people: 1. Arnold 2. Betty, a maid 3. a cook. With serial comma: "They went to Oregon with Arnold, Betty, a maid, and a cook." It's exactly the same punctuation as if there were four people. Without serial comma (the same again because there's a comma before "and" for the clause): "They went to Oregon with Arnold, Betty, a maid, and a cook." which is different from if the list contained four people, in which case it would look like this: "They went to Oregon with Arnold, Betty, a maid and a cook." Anything I've missed? Ambiguity is possible, even if there's something wrong with this example, so please don't just remove. --Lo2u (T • C) 03:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's something wrong with your example. 1) It's not the inclusion of the serial comma which creates the ambiguity.  Without the serial comma, the phrase "Betty, a maid and a cook" could be mentioning either two or three people -- the phrase is ambiguous without the serial comma.  2) A serial comma is only used when there are three or more terms in a list.  The list "a maid and a cook" is only two items long and thus should not have a serial comma.  3) Thus, when used appropriately, the serial comma creates no new ambiguity.  Rather, that ambiguity which was already present in the phrase before the inclusion of the serial comma remains.  As such, this example is not germane to the serial comma discussion and should be stricken. Banaticus 04:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Banaticus I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you discussing my example above or the example in the article? I should say two things. Firstly the article discusses the pros and cons of the construction and you've just removed all of the cons as if they don't exist creating a highly point of view version. Secondly the point of my example is that in a consistent system that uses the serial comma, it's possible for ambiguity to exist while in an alternative system no such ambiguity may exist. --Lo2u (T • C) 08:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Banaticus, you are wrong. If the style is no-serial-comma, "Betty, a maid and a cook" is either one or three people, and "Betty, a maid, and a cook" must be two people. If a serial comma is being used, "Betty, a maid and a cook" must be one person, but "Betty, a maid, and a cook" can be either two or three people. So I concede that the serial comma doesn't increase the sum total of ambiguity - but it does nothing to reduce it, and it introduces its own ambiguity (either way, there is only one reading of one version of the phrase, and two possible readings of the other). If you can come up with a better example, please insert it. Meanwhile, please see Noetica's comments below. Gnusmas 08:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I see now. I didn't understand because, as Gnusmas points out, What you say is wrong. The interpretation of these four to be two items isn't possible - there would be no conjunction . Take a look at my example again "a maid and a cook" isn't one of the items. I don't assume that "a maid, and a cook" is a single item written with a comma. --Lo2u (T • C) 08:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that if you use a system that doesn't use serial commas you can avoid the ambiguity if there are three items by placing a comma before the "and" and this can only be interpreted in one way. --Lo2u (T • C) 08:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the example sentence used in this section is wrong. Logically, if we want to prove that the serial comma creates ambiguity in some cases, then we must provide an example of a clearly unambiguous sentence (without serial comma) and show that when the serial comma is used, the sentence becomes ambiguous. The example sentence used here is ambiguous in itself - there maybe three persons involved (Betty,Sally(the maid) and Lily(the cook)), or two (Betty(the maid) and Lily(the cook)) or just one (Betty, who is both a maid and a cook). If someone cannot provide a suitable example, I propose to remove this section.


 * Please do not remove the section, whoever you are (and please sign your contributions to this talk page!) - but by all means improve it! This page was discussed at great length a while ago, and the present formulation is the agreed NPOV work of several editors. For some reason this topic has been subject to a great deal of POV-pushing, and we don't want to start the war again... Gnusmas 15:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A further thought - in "Betty, a maid, and a pet rabbit" the serial comma DOES create the ambiguity. Without it, there are clearly two people and a bunny. With it there may be either one or two people (and a bunny). I think the answer is to turn the paragraph(s) around a bit, so that the rabbit is dealt with before the cook. I'll do it - later, when I have time - but in the meantime please do not delete! Gnusmas 15:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that changing the third person to a rabbit does not prove anything. When I see "Betty, a maid, and a rabbit," it is true that it could be either two people and a rabbit or Betty the maid and a rabbit. However, when you put "Betty, a maid and a rabbit" I automatically see Betty who is both a maid and a rabbit, not two people and a rabbit. I know that is not true because common sense tells me so, not because it lacks the serial comma. Changing one of the subjects does not solve the technical issue. What follows after the comma in any sentence "X, a Y and a Z" would appear to be a description of what follows the comma. 216.165.5.247 17:23, 5 December 2006(UTC)S.


 * May I chip in? I guess you are used to the convention which does use a serial comma. In that case I can understand that "a, b and c" automatically looks like "a, which is b and c". But I assure you that for someone used to the no-serial-comma convention that is not the case. To me (in Britain), "a, b and c" is by default a list of three things. You may find this hard to believe, but it is true. From this perspective the second comma in "Betty, a maid, and a rabbit" makes the sentence ambiguous. There are two conventions, and neither is right, neither is wrong. This article looks to me like a very careful and accurate attempt to steer the middle WP:NPOV path. Let's keep it that way! Snalwibma 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see how using a serial comma, reading without knowing it's used and assuming the second comma is put there to separate maid from the rest of the sentence can lead to confusion. But, as far as I know, the last comma isn't necessary (or allowed? Not sure about this one.) if you don't use the serial comma, so that argument is wrong. Also, allowing you to both use and not use a comma is ambigous by definition. gcbirzantalk 16:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure I follow what you are saying. The point of the examples in the "creating ambiguity" section is that a sentence which is unambiguous in a no-serial-comma environment without a serial comma may be ambiguous in a serial-comma environment with the comma inserted. The ambiguity does not depend on the reader being ignorant of the convention being used; it is (in some circumstances) inherent in the convention of using a serial comma, just as (in other circumstances) ambiguity is inherent in the no-serial-comma convention. Snalwibma 19:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Betty, a maid and a rabbit"... Betty works for a singing telegram company and will go out in a maid's costume or a rabbit costume??? The longer I look at the examples more and more layers of ambiguity appear. Bazj (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If this passage were in a children's book, no one would question the common sense of Betty being both a maid and a rabbit. Suppose she were a descendent of Peter Rabbit, or El-ahrairah? --Alfador (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This is my first time with talk feature; I ask your pardons in advance. I'm in agreement regarding the ambiguity in the maid sentence. I am surprised that no one has yet pointed to the Ayn Rand sentence as being an incorrect example: if Ayn Rand were the mother, the sentence would read "my mother Ayn Rand." According to Strunk & White (cited in this article!!), "No comma, however, should separate a noun from a restrictive term of identification" (Part of rule 3 in Elementary Rules of usage). Tellingnot123 (talk) 23:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Two points. (1) I don't see the difference between the two examples - Ayn Rand is to my mother exactly as a maid is to Betty - so if one is wrong surely both are. (2) But there is nothing wrong with enclosing the explanatory term in commas - I don't have Strunk & White to hand, but surely that "rule" must be referring to things like "my maternal grandfather", in which maternal restrictively identifies grandfather. In the example quoted, if Ayn Rand = mother, Ayn Rand is in apposition to my mother. It doesn't restrictively identify, but adds further information about... Snalwibma (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Serial commas are not used in a series of two. There is nothing about a rule that requires the use of serial commas in a series of three or more that would call for using a serial comma in a series of two that happends to follow a parantherical comma. Nothing. These examples are completely false.216.9.182.249 (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well actually, according to my teachings, the examples are grammatically wrong if "Betty, a maid and a Catholic priest" are three people. In a list of three or more a colon is to be used to delineate the list. Hence, the forgoing list is unambiguous as two people, the maid Betty and the Catholic Priest. If a serial comma is added then a colon must also be added, because you are now saying it is a list of three or more. furthermore, the sentence is in bad form for mixing the two different noun phrases "Betty, a maid" and "a Catholic Priest". I do not believe there is any grammar rule to prevent such use, but it is bad style. It should really be written as "a/the maid Betty and a Catholic Priest". Context is needed to determine which is better "the" or "a". That is my two cents on the topic, albeit belatedly. --Celtic hackr (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The so-called example of where use of the Oxford comma introduces ambiguity suck, blow, and are totally erroneous. The original sentences are equally as ambiguous, but rely on 'background knowledge' to eliminate ambiguity - but surely this is the same for all such sentences. 'Background knowledge' tells you that Ayn Rand and God cannot be the parents of the person in question, it is merely that the way the sentence is written makes it look absurd. These 'examples' are merely instances of where the ambiguity is possibly unresolved FOARP (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So fix it; what's stopping you? Chrisrus (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

After reading the above nonsense, I have deleted the claims that the serial comma is ambiguous. These claims are specious for three reasons:

FIRST: It is not enough to come up with an "ambiguous" example: you must come up with an example which is ambiguous when the serial comma is present and NON-ambiguous when it is removed. Otherwise the serial comma is clearly Pareto-preferred over a missing serial comma. The example provided simply does not do this: not only is it also ambiguous when the comma is removed (and admitted as such), it is unapologetically *worse* than when the comma is present.

SECOND: The problem in the example is not one of punctuation, but rather one of grammar: there is a missing word ("to") and so the sentence is not properly parallel. Use proper grammar and suddenly the serial comma is UNambiguous and its lack thereof is not only ambiguous but actually nonsensical.

THIRD: Even if there were to exist examples (and this is still a matter of debate) where the serial comma is ambiguous AND its lack is NOT ambiguous AND the example is not due to a grammar error as above, it's still the case that the degree of ambiguity, in general, is not equivalent. To tempt Godwin's Law, sure it's the case that both the Nazis and the Poles killed people; this does not mean that the Nazis weren't far *far* worse! The same is the situation with the serial comma. Even if there WERE examples where the serial comma was bad, the sheer mass of non-serial-comma examples is absolutely gigantic, FAR outweighing this. Claiming that they're both "ambiguous" is a disservice to the reader, misleading him into thinking that picking either is equally likely to lead to ambiguity and thus that there's no reason to pick one over the other with respect to ambiguity.

-- feijai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.93.20 (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please actually read the new version. The example given is unambiguous with no serial comma, as long as you concede that it is permitted not to use a serial comma (which it clearly is). The serial comma makes it ambiguous. Simple. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The revised version, and its accompanying claim, is also false for two reasons:

FIRST: the issue isn't the serial comma. It's another punctuation mistake: the lack of a semicolon and parallel phrasing. Semicolons are list separators when the list elements themselves contain commas. That is, if the goal was to claim that your mother was Ayn Rand, then the proper sentence would be: "To my Mother, Ayn Rand; and to God."

SECOND: removing the comma does NOT make the sentence unambiguous. Indeed, what's particularly bizarre about you using this example is that it is the canonical example as to why the serial comma is needed.

Again: to claim that there is parallelism in the ambiguity claims, and not do a disservice to the reader, you must demonstrate an example in which the serial comma introduces ambiguity but its removal does not, and further, that this ambiguity is not due to some other puctuation or grammar error. You have not done this. So I'm reverting your undos again. Sorry.

-- feijai —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feijai (talk • contribs) 18:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely reject these arguments. No one is claiming any "parallelism". Yes, it is the case that not using a serial comma is more often ambiguous than using one - but there are cases where a list that is written without a serial comma is unambiguous but the same list is ambiguous with a serial comma. The example used is one such - and to talk about semicolons and inserting an additional word is a complete red herring. Of course restructuring it that way would make it clearer, but that's not the point. There is an inherent ambiguity in "a, b, and c" if b can be read as in appposition to a, and "a, b and c" resolves it, as long as b and c cannot both be read as descriptions of a. If you reject the particular example because it's clumsy and would be better with semicolons and a repeated "to", then the same must apply to the example "to my parents, Ayn Rand and God" – which according to your logic is quite unambiguous, meaning that the writer's parents are Ayn Rand and God. But I will wait and see what others have to say. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Um. "to my parents, Ayn Rand and God" *is* semantically unambiguous. It unambiguously means "to my parents, who are Ayn Rand and God". By stating that the sentence is "ambiguous" we mean this only in a broad usage sense: when reading the sentence it's clear that the writer may have meant something else but was being lazy, so we're allowing "to my parents, and to Ayn Rand, and to God" as an additional mistaken possibility on the writer's part.


 * I disagree. "to my parents, Ayn Rand and God" means "to my parents, to Ayn Rand and to God" or, at a stretch, the meaning you claim is the only one. Tayste (edits)

The example provided for the serial comma is not "ambiguous" because the alternative parsing is not proper grammar. If it's a list of two elements ("the mother who is Ayn Rand" and "God"), then you no longer have a simple list because ", Ayn Rand," is a subphrase. It's now a broken sentence. In this case the proper form is to at LEAST make the sentence parallel ("to my mother, Ayn Rand, and to God"), and ideally add a semicolon, since the semicolon's *job* is to separate list elements which contain commas: ("to my mother, Ayn Rand; and to God").


 * What grammar is "proper" is precisely what is at issue here: different writers/nationalities have different grammatical rules, the serial comma being one of them. There is no single standard followed by everyone. Something what does not appear to be ambiguous to you may indeed be ambiguous to other readers, or visa versa. Tayste (edits) 07:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to claim that the serial comma creates ambiguity, you should provide an example which is grammatically correct in its alternative parsing; and furthermore is grammatically correct (with the same meaning) when the serial comma is removed. Otherwise the example on the front page is just a rank embarrassment. Furthermore if such an example *did* exist, it'd be so rare as to be a disservice to the reader to claim that both the serial and nonserial commas are "ambiguous", when one is clearly far *far* more problematic than the other.

-- feijai —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feijai (talk • contribs) 05:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Feijai - please forgive me for making an assumption - but it appears that you are not used to the style of writing in which the serial comma is not used, and you therefore see its lack as "lazy". Starting from the premise that the serial comma is "right" and the lack of it is "wrong", then sure, your reading of these lists is fair enough. But in many parts of the world, in English and other languages, a simple list of three is normally (and correctly) punctuated "a, b and c". And therefore a dedication to three people would be expected to take the form "to a, b and c". Of course there may be clearer (though arguably less elegant) ways of expressing it such as "to a, to b and to c" - or (because the convention that normally avoids the serial comma in simple lists does not absolutely prohibit it) "to a, to b, and to c". I assure you that the example provided is perfectly grammatically correct. It may not look it, to one who is used to the serial-comma convention, but it is. I wonder, though, if it would be easier to appreciate the ambiguity that the serial comma brings if we swapped over the first two elements and said "Ayn Rand, my mother, and God". For me (used to the convention that avoids a serial comma in a simple list) that looks like a list of two people, with "my mother" as a parenthetical explanation of "Ayn Rand". I have to stop, think, and reread it to see it as a list of three. Clearly our different backgrounds, the standards we have been taught, the kinds of English we are most used to reading, colour the way we read such sentences. I agree with you that in general an ambiguity caused by the lack of a serial comma will be resolved by inserting one more often than vice versa - but I think it's important to point out that that opposite case can occur. SNALWIBMA ( talk - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 08:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A general plea for NPOV
I know it really doesn't matter very much (compared with other current world events, for example), but please, please, could people editing this page adhere to the Wikipedia NPOV standards. There are a lot of phrases creeping in such as "the consistent rule for lists, and therefore most natural for reading, is the serial comma rule" which, to say the least, border on the POV! I suspect that a lot of this is being inserted by (dare I say this without offending anyone?) Americans who are not used to seeing lists without a final serial comma, and who are struggling to grasp this (predominantly British etc) convention. If you approach it from the starting point that a serial comma is "natural", then, sure, a lot of the comments are valid. But it is a matter of simple FACT that there is a well-established convention in which the final comma in a series is omitted, and to anyone used to this convention this too makes perfect sense, appears to follow "the natural cadence of speech", etc. To my (British) eyes and ears, omitting the comma is the natural thing to do. If you want to start arguing about what is "natural" and what is not, I could retaliate by attacking (e.g.) the American way of handling closing quotes at the end of a sentence. It's totally illogical, but it's a convention, and it works. It doesn't pretend to be "natural", just usable. The (lack of) serial comma is the same. Just two alternative conventions. Neither is right. Neither is wrong. Can we strive for a more balanced approach? Please? Maybe it's time to rewrite the entire serial comma article, adhering to NPOV. Gnusmas 07:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The convention regarding placement of quotes is different, because it does not directly reflect on pronunciation. The consistency of the serial comma with cadence is not specific to Americans.  Any native English speaker who says with deliberation "There will be no ifs, ands, or buts" pauses after each comma.  When such a written sentence omits the serial comma, it no longer matches those spoken pauses.  By "natural," I meant consistent with native speech -- not American speech specifically.  Obviously a convention need not follow what is natural.  For instance, in English, many words are not spelled the way they are pronounced.  But anyone can verify that the serial comma is natural in this way simply by listening to deliberate native speech.  (In quick speech, there is also a direct correspondence between sound and commas -- serial comma included, but it is harder to detect, since it relates to tonality rather than pauses.)  I don't see how your removal of the explanatory paragraph explaining this serves this article, but I will wait for a reasoned response before reinstating it or something similar.  71.146.128.149 22:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just wading in with my own thoughts but commas aren't supposed to be pause markers, not in the sense you speak of; people who inserted commas because they were pausing would, I imagine, punctuate quite badly. Also I don't pause at all when saying "There will be no ifs, ands, or buts", - nor do most people - and a pause would sound particularly unpleasant if spoken in the last place. Although commas don't mark natural pauses in speech, pausing might improve the clarity of a sentence like, "The boy, whom I saw yesterday, is friendly", although it won't generally improve the clarity of a list. Nevertheless commas aren't there to tell you to pause - they're syntactical devices to explain the relationship between phrases in written English. I think "the consistent rule for lists, and therefore most natural for reading, is the serial comma rule" is an assertion that doesn't justify itself here - a no serial comma rule would be consistent if everyone obeyed it - what does this mean and why does consistent mean readable or natural? --Lo2u 22:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute. Ideally, if everyone had the eloquence of orators, commas would mark pauses. This is true even though news readers often leap over full stops and commas where syntax demands them — and they sound quite horrible. As it happens, commas do indicate pauses, even though not everyone has the ability to speak like an orator. Punctuation signifies how a speaker would pause ideally in speech; it does not refer to how people generally pause in sentences, which is not ideal. It is still ungrammatical, for instance, to routinely put a comma between a long subject and a verb, even though people often pause there. Yet writers are not compelled to use these errant commas because this is not an ideal mode of speech. Texts read aloud sound better when people follow the punctuation, hence the reason it is there. A sane writer does not insert "ahem"s and "err"s into text because both clearly sound horrible. You can read Shakespeare with the erratic punctuation of common speech if you like, but I will follow his punctuation. Rintrah 05:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that commas are not there to tell you to pause; I was referring to their origin, not their current prescriptive use. Yes, fundamentally it is about syntactic relationships as you say.  Sometimes, those relationships manifest in spoken speech as pauses, sometimes as a change in inflection.  As you mention, my example is perhaps not so good from a pause standpoint.  But take any list, pronounce deliberately, and note where there is a pause, an extension (in time) of a vowel, or a rise in tone.  That may be a better indicator.  Here's another example: "Salami, ham and cheese, and peanut butter and jelly."  Taking out the serial comma results in "Salami, ham and cheese and peanut butter and jelly."  Which better reflects both syntax and inflection?  71.146.154.62 15:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying but I disagree. The cited "Salami, ham and cheese, and peanut butter and jelly." example isn't an example of a comma telling you where to pause, it's more syntactic relationship marking - one method people might use if reading this to convey the syntactical nuances of the phrase is to pause - rather artificially - but the comma isn't a pause marker and people in speech don't pause like that. Discussion of the pros and cons of the serial comma need to be confined to the written page and not to what is "natural". Additionally, the removed paragraph is blatant original research. It starts off with the assertion that "presumably" the original purpose of the comma is as a pause and all further arguments are based on this. --Lo2u (T • C) 21:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem confident of your position, Lo2u. I wonder if you are really sure of this, though: ...the comma isn't a pause marker and people in speech don't pause like that. Really? Consider: one spoken method of marking syntactic relationships is to pause (why do you say rather artificially?); one standard function of a comma is to mark syntactic relationships; and a core function of writing is to record spoken discourse (or to propose discourse that might be spoken, etc.). Given all that, why is it unreasonable to suggest that a comma may often mark a pause in speech? I invite you to think again (better, listen again!). You wrote earlier: I don't pause at all when saying "There will be no ifs, ands, or buts", - nor do most people - and a pause would sound particularly unpleasant if spoken in the last place. I put it to you that most people do pause where the commas are, in this case. It is not always easy to hear and remember such small pauses, because they are quite fleeting. Noetica 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think all the various posters on this seem fairly confident. I've thought and I still disagree. You say most people do pause but it's only fleeting - isn't that just what they do in between all words? Is it an especially long fleeting pause? I say artificially because in these circumstances people pause because there's a comma and don't insert commas because they pause. In natural speech (and I use the term deliberately) people don't make more than a fleeting pause to mark subordinate clauses and the like but the practice isn't uncommon when reading something that has been written down - it's almost essential when reading something like Milton. What I'm saying is that commas aren't there to represent a place where people need to pause; they're there because there are rules that say they should be put in  (rules that don't say anything about pauses). Often, as you correctly point out, they coincide with pauses. Sometimes they don't. Whether they were originally pause markers or not I don't know. But they're not now. Also the argument is irrelevant and (as far as I can tell) original research in its old form.
 * P.S. You're being a little confrontational - "I invite you to think again (better, listen again!)" - and it's making me feel slightly uncomfortable replying for fear this could escalate. Would you try not to? I think I've made my point several times now so unless you have something new to add I'm probably going to leave it here. --Lo2u (T • C) 10:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually use the serial comma most of the time, but I completely reject the "natural" argument. I'd say yes, sure, there is a kind of a pause before the last item in a list (after the "and"), but it's a slightly smaller pause than the ones that come earlier. So now what's "natural"? It's just a convention. Whether the commas are speech-pause-markers or syntactical-relationship-markers actually makes no difference (and surely the truth is that they are a bit of both). The point is that there are two well-established and perfectly sensible ways of handling the sort of list under discussion - the serial-comma way and the non-serial-comma way. Each has its benefits; each has its disadvantages; each has its adherents. Whatever - a Wikipedia article should state and explain the different systems. It should not promote either. Gnusmas 09:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Thanks Gnusmas.--Lo2u (T • C) 10:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Lo2u, I'll truly sorry if you find a mild challenge on such a controversial and elusive matter even a little confrontational. You made various statements that are unsupported by published research, as far as I can see, such as this: ...the comma isn't a pause marker and people in speech don't pause like that. My experience happens to differ (and I too have thought a great on such matters, and listened very carefully and often). It is because of such differences that we have discussion! :) For the record, it seems to me (though I will not proclaim it from the minarets) that there are three kinds of pressure that together have a bearing on "good" use of commas (in particular): 1) logical and syntactic pressure (conveniently grouped as one, I think); 2) pressure from spoken practice; and 3) pressure from convention. Often these pressures will not work in the same direction. But often enough they will, and for a good reason. They are not always orthogonal and independent: the first two help determine convention, after all, and the second often quite naturally reflects the first. With whatever historical or other cause, the case of the serial comma is one in which the three pressures do not push together. I think, what's more, that it is a common error to think that there is just one determinant of good practice in writing. Very often no perfect accommodation of those three pressures can be found – certainly no solution that everyone will agree on. For that reason, tolerance is a good idea in these matters, as in many others: along with a practice of writing that is logical, in accord with the spoken language, and as much as practicable respectful of well-founded convention. Since this will inevitably involve compromises, let those compromises at least issue in consistency. (There: have I said something new? I don't want to confront, just to put issues on the table for discussion, if anyone cares to take them up.) Noetica 12:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind being challenged. I slightly object to the implications of comments like "You seem confident of your position" as well as the assertion that I need to listen - a little unnecessary don't you think? Also both of us are disagreeing with each other and neither of us has referred to published research to support our positions. Have you said anything new? I have no idea. To be honest I don't fully understand your three kinds of pressure and I'm struggling to think of a case where spoken pressure, as opposed to the other two, demands the use of a comma. I am sure that "because there's a pause there" is never in itself adequate justification for using a comma - the use must be supported by some rule of grammar that allows it. Do I really need published evidence to make that asssertion? It seems common sense to me. (Imagine, a teacher comes into a very noisy classroom and says, slowly and loudly, "When, you're, quite finished..." - doesn't work does it?) I do think there are two different conventions that can both find logical support in certain circumstances. Complete consistency while avoiding ambiguity is impossible - there are times when the serial comma is best left in and times when it's best left out. The problem I have is with the unsupported assertion that one convention is more "natural" than the other. Remember that this article, as well covering the serial comma convention, must also cover the no-serial comma convention which does not have an article of its own.--Lo2u (T • C) 13:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I, for my part, slightly object to statements that you had made without support from any external source, as if they were just obviously right! But I don't actually take offence, if you want to make such statements. I simply feel free to challenge them. I cannot help what implications you read into my gentle challenge, as I offered it. I say that you seem confident of your position simply because you state it categorically without appearing to feel the need to support it with evidence or appeal to "authorities"! (I state things like that too sometimes, and I am challenged when I do.) On the other hand, I have offered some conjectures that you might consider. It does seem that you have not fully understood them, which may be at least partly because of some failure in how I have expressed them. Let me therefore comment on some parts of your response:
 * I'm struggling to think of a case where spoken pressure, as opposed to the other two, demands the use of a comma.
 * Well, so would I struggle! I did not claim that pressure from spoken usage ever does that alone. Quite the contrary.
 * I am sure that "because there's a pause there" is never in itself adequate justification for using a comma - the use must be supported by some rule of grammar that allows it.
 * Again, you won't get an argument from me (as they say).
 * I do think there are two different conventions that can both find logical support in certain circumstances.
 * Yes. So do I. Note the edits I recently made to the introductory material in the article. As you can see, I favour neither view there, but strive towards a more rounded and clear exposition of both.
 * Complete consistency while avoiding ambiguity is impossible - there are times when the serial comma is best left in and times when it's best left out.
 * I haven't said that the consistency to aimed at is necessarily a matter of always using, or always avoiding, the serial comma. One can, however, be consistent in one's decisions in cases that one judges to be similar in all relevant respects. That's all I meant; and it's a principle that I would propose for most choices in punctuation, and in writing generally.
 * The problem I have is with the unsupported assertion that one convention is more "natural" than the other.
 * That is indeed a problem. But please note that I made no such assertion.
 * So – are we on an even keel? I do hope so! We're all joined in trying to make a good and useful article, after all. That's the main thing. Noetica 14:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm sorry if that's all you meant - I may have read too much in to it and I apologise. To be honest I agree with all of your responses to my points so probably we are on an even keel, yes. The reason I keep coming back to the "natural" argument is that this is where this discussion started. My assertion that commas aren't pause markers was in response to an unsupported piece of (possibly original) research about how commas began and why this makes the serial comma more natural. I have no objection to your version in the article which is why I've left it as it is and at no point made mention of it on this talk page. BTW, what would you do with the following? My version: "What sort of sandwich would you like? Coronation chicken, ham and cheese, or bacon, lettuce and tomato" - I think the addition of one serial comma and the removal of another is almost essential. [This was posted by Lo2u (T • C)]


 * No problem! It's easy for any of us to give the wrong cues, or to misread cues, in these discussion pages. As for your question, I'd need to ask how many options there are for the sandwich, and precisely what those options are. Not knowing what coronation chicken is, and whether it is ever eaten along with ham (or cheese for that matter), I can't determine even these preliminaries. But I suspect that, no matter what your answer is, I would want to use either a semicolon or more than one question mark. Sometimes commas are not apt for removing ambiguity safely and efficiently. Beyond all that, I should reveal that I am in fact a fan of the serial comma, and favour its use in very many circumstances. Noetica 15:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, not that it really matters but three sandwiches: 1. coronation chicken 2. ham and cheese 3. bacon lettuce and tomato And yes, I think I might use semicolons too... Best. --Lo2u (T • C) 15:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for re-editing the opening of the article, Noetica - your version (not referring to the talk page) is better - and now clearer than it was! As for the sandwiches - we are clearly here entering the realms of cross-cultural differences way beyond the serial comma, and no amount of mere punctuation will help. Gnusmas 15:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Gnusmas. I did have to make one small adjustment, though. It read as if we were enumerating reasons for not using it by default, where we needed reasons for not using it, by default – if you catch my meaning. (I like italics.) Lo2u, if forced to work with commas alone for punctuation within the sentence, I would do it this way:


 * A. Coronation chicken, or ham and cheese, or bacon, lettuce, and tomato?


 * This is unambiguous, I suggest. Note that the second and fourth commas are both serial commas. If I were forced to use exactly the sequence of words you propose, and again only commas, I would reluctantly do it like this:


 * B. Coronation chicken, ham and cheese, or bacon, lettuce, and tomato?


 * This too might seem unambiguous, but it is only unambiguous if it is known that coronation chicken is not something that is combined with anything else. Without this information, the question might be referring in a strange, ill-ordered way to either of these strange, ill-ordered sandwiches:


 * Coronation chicken, ham, cheese, lettuce, and tomato.
 * Coronation chicken, bacon, lettuce, and tomato.


 * At least B could not reasonably be understood to refer to the following options:


 * Coronation chicken, ham, and cheese.
 * Bacon, lettuce, and tomato.


 * This is because a serial comma is used before and tomato; if these last two options had been referred to, there should also have been one before and cheese, but there is not.


 * If allowed semicolons, I would do it like this:


 * C. Coronation chicken; ham and cheese; or bacon, lettuce, and tomato?


 * If allowed more than one question mark, I might be so adventurous as to do it like this:


 * D. Coronation chicken? ham and cheese? or bacon, lettuce, and tomato?


 * Such usage is sanctioned here and there. I don't mind it; and it is not written on stone tablets that question marks must be sentence enders. Overall, I think I'd usually go for C. But it would depend on the ambient register, among other things (like the need for local consistency). In some situations I would prefer A or B. Noetica 08:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of coronation chicken, ham and cheese (a.k.a. coronation chicken, ham, and cheese) in a single sandwich - it might actually disguise the taste of the "coronation" slop enough to make it edible. Gnusmas 12:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment on recent edits
I have looked at what Banaticus has had to say (above), and at the edits Banaticus has made. It seems to me that they are high-handed, and that they take little if any account of the complex discussion that previous editors have engaged in here. Banaticus, have you read this discussion page, and the archived material? If you have not, may I suggest that you do so? I shall comment now specifically on your editing of the introductory matter, which I have been working hard on lately. You deleted the second item from this list:


 * Arguments for avoidance of the serial comma by default include:


 * that it is against much conventional practice;
 * that it may introduce ambiguity; and
 * that it is redundant, since the and or the or serves by itself to mark the logical separation between the final two items.

It seems that you did this because you reject that argument. But this is not a good reason for deleting it! I myself made that list, and I am a supporter of the serial comma. But I wanted to refer to three often-used arguments for, and three against, without evaluating them – all in the interest of NPOV. Also, it appears that you don't like an and in such lists. Well, if you must delete the and, go all the way and change other things, like this:


 * Arguments for avoidance of the serial comma by default include these:


 * It is against much conventional practice.
 * It may introduce ambiguity.
 * It is redundant, since the and or the or serves by itself to mark the logical separation between the final two items.

Or with no punctuation at the end of each item. There: three acceptable ways of doing such a list.

Please be a little more restrained. Even the casual observer can see that some pretty thoughtful editors have been at work here. Noetica 05:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Noetica! Gnusmas 08:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 11:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. —ndyguy 19:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither and nor
"neither snow, rain, nor heat"

I was puzzled by this as I had always been taught (in England) that "neither" and "nor" can only be used to differentiate between two items in the same way as "either" and "or". Is this not the case in US English? MrMarmite 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're right, MrMarmite, up to a point. But I think the problem is not that you're not supposed to use "nor" to link more than two things, but that it can't be replaced by a comma as a serial connector. So this should read "neither snow, nor rain, nor heat". And I also think (though with no real evidence, just a sense of what seems to work best) that this is a case where even a British non-serial-commaist like me would insert a comma before the final "nor". But we can't change it in the article - it's a quote from an external source! Gnusmas 07:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Arguments
Comments on the summary of arguments:


 * that it better matches the spoken cadence of sentences;
 * This would seem to be the major reason, since the original purpose of the comma was to signify a pause or breath, and there is a pause before and.
 * that it is against much conventional practice;
 * I don't understand why this is in the list. Both are conventional practice, so this should be removed.  That it is against some classical practice might be a valid argument, but I don't know that there ever was a consistent practice, besides the original pause for breath.
 * that it is redundant, since the and or the or serves by itself to mark the logical separation between the final two items.
 * This would seem to be the major reason against, and should be listed first. It is due to the assumption that the comma is a placeholder for an and or or:  "ham and chips and eggs" becomes "ham, chips and eggs", in the same way that apostrophes signify missing letters, and a comma is therefore redundant.

Also,

Removing the comma leaves the possibility that Betty is both a maid and a cook, but since this is an unlikely construction

"They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid and a cook."

That's an unlikely construction? — Omegatron 23:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good to have your input on this, Omegatron. Personally, I am not persuaded that the list should change. Here are my remarks on each of your points:


 * that it better matches the spoken cadence of sentences;
 * This would seem to be the major reason, since the original purpose of the comma was to signify a pause or breath, and there is a pause before and.
 * I tend to agree that the original purpose of the comma is something like that, and I certainly agree that nearly all of us nearly always do pause at that point. But you will find this hotly contested around here. And whether it is the major reason or not would also be contested. Luckily, there is no reason to nominate any reasons as the major ones, for or against.


 * that it is against much conventional practice;
 * I don't understand why this is in the list. Both are conventional practice, so this should be removed.  That it is against some classical practice might be a valid argument, but I don't know that there ever was a consistent practice, besides the original pause for breath.
 * I don't think it should be removed. If it applies to both, it ought (if anything) to be included for both! But in fact the argument is much more commonly used by those opposing the serial comma. Whether it is a good argument is, of course, a separate matter.


 * that it is redundant, since the and or the or serves by itself to mark the logical separation between the final two items.
 * This would seem to be the major reason against, and should be listed first. It is due to the assumption that the comma is a placeholder for an and or or:  "ham and chips and eggs" becomes "ham, chips and eggs", in the same way that apostrophes signify missing letters, and a comma is therefore redundant.
 * Once again, whether or not is the major reasojn is likely to be disputed; and once more also, we don't have to say which arguments are major.


 * OK, perhaps I'm biased, since I made that list. But bear in mind the intention: to present, but not to evaluate (or to rank, which would be a kind of evaluation), an equal number of common arguments as they are in fact used for and against the serial comma. If others agree with your suggestions, I will acquiesce. As things stand, I do not – for the reasons I have presented just now. As for your final point (about the Oregon Odyssey), I'm easy either way. – Noetica 05:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But presenting them in a list is a form of ranking. You're implying that saying "That extra comma looks weird to me; I don't like it" is a legitimate complaint, but the opposite is not.  I think it should just be mentioned in the text near the list that people often dislike things they're not used to, and the list should show the practical arguments for why it would or wouldn't be helpful.  "I've never seen that before" is not a practical or logical argument that a Wikipedia reader would consider while trying to decide which is superior to them, or even just reading to try to figure out why people care so much. — Omegatron 12:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Omegatron, you say that "presenting them in a list is a form of ranking". I say it is not. A list may or not imply ranking. It would depend on the immediate context and on any applicable conventions. I see nothing in the immediate context, nor in any conventions used in Wikipedia, that would impel readers to see a ranking among these items. Perhaps you could remove the numbering (which I wanted just to show equality, in this sensitive topic), and make them bullet points instead. I'd have no objection to that. Next, you characterise one of the arguments as more or less equivalent to "that extra comma looks weird to me; I don't like it". Well, as a strong supporter of the serial comma, I am sympathetic. But I think you are being unfair. An appeal to what is thought to be settled convention is not something to dismiss lightly, since uniformity in punctuation is a good thing. I am also sympathetic concerning your next point: "that people often dislike things they're not used to". Quite so. I myself abhor the lack of a serial comma as much as nature abhors a vacuum. (How about you?) But this article is not about the psychology of intolerance: it is about the serial comma, and the arguments – good and bad – that are used for and against it. There is, like it or not, a case to be made against the serial comma (and I grit my teeth as I write that); there is also a case to be made for it. And there are subtle cases to be made for mixed approaches. If NPOV means anything, it means we must struggle to show the extant arguments as fairly as we can, and suppress our own biases – even if we cannot see that they are biases! We might, after all, be wrong. Other people certainly think we are! Finally, even with NPOV respected throughout it will be clear to the intelligent reader why people are passionate about such things, I think. The very fact that a longish article is dedicated to the matter, presenting details of different views, with copious external links to support them, should demonstrate all that needs to be demonstrated. – Noetica 13:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can't tell which I prefer, I must be behaving pretty neutrally about it, eh? :-)  I'm just going to edit it and demonstrate how I think it should be listed. — Omegatron 15:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with Noetica - let's not start evaluating or ranking! We've succeeded in making the article NPOV and we shouldn't reintroduce the POV that it was riddled with until Noetica and others got to work on it a few weeks ago. On the other hand, I think Omegatron has a point about "Removing the comma leaves the possibility that Betty is both a maid and a cook, but since this is an unlikely construction ..." It's neither an unlikely construction nor an unlikely interpretation. I have stuck my neck out and changed it... Gnusmas 07:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like your change to the Betty bit, by the way. — Omegatron 15:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of introductory section
Having allowed considerable time for discussion, I see no support here for recent changes to the introductory section. On the other hand, I see strong opinion that may fairly be judged to support the general thrust of an earlier approach. Personally, I find nothing particularly good in those recent changes, and some that is bad. This argument for the serial comma, for example:


 * that it better matches the spoken cadence of sentences, with the comma serving as an indicator for a pause in dictation

That is a very weakened version of a good argument, with this highly specific appeal to dictation (such a rare thing these days, in any case!).

I will support my reversion against arbitrary alterations, and I call for reasoned discussion before any more radical changes are introduced. It has been hard to achieve consensus and good order here, and I for one would like Wikipedia to reap the benefits of our earlier efforts towards a harmonious and rational resolution of competing claims. – Noetica 02:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am fully behind you, Noetica, and will also be watchful - and mindful of the hard-won consensus. Gnusmas 06:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel these two aspects ought to be included in the introduction: a) the serial comma is widely used only in North America and b) the serial comma is unknown in other European languages. Ignoring these two points gives the reader the wrong impression, and hence I regret Noetica's reversion. Kaodk 20:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Y'know, I agree with you. I have reinstated that paragraph. OK, everyone? Gnusmas 20:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree too! I didn't mean to try to fix things for all time, by reverting. I only wanted radical changes to be more discussed. Now I'll change something in the text in an attempt to reach a compromise with Omegatron:


 * Arguments typically advanced for use of the serial comma by default include:


 * that it better matches the spoken cadence of sentences;
 * that it sometimes reduces ambiguity; and
 * that its use matches practice with other means of separating items in a list (example: when semicolons are used to separate items, a semicolon is consistently included before the last item, even when and or or is present).


 * Arguments typically advanced for avoidance of the serial comma by default include:


 * that it is against much conventional practice;
 * that it may introduce ambiguity; and
 * that it is redundant, since the and or the or serves by itself to mark the logical separation between the final two items.


 * You see? It's a question of which arguments are in fact deployed by the two camps, not a question of which might be deployed. And in fact, we hear that it is against much conventional practice far more often from the opponents of the serial comma than from its supporters.


 * If we work any other way, we are evaluating the arguments. If we evaluate them, we begin an interminable churning of competing entrenched opinions. Let's be firm in resisting that. – Noetica 00:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Lists of two, and lists of more than two
Holy Smokes, this conversation is long and I can't read all of it. I've been pondering this lately: the topic of the serial comma only applies to lists with more than 2 elements. But people against the idea of a serial comma basically employ the same rules for lists of 2 elements or more. This is a reason that aesthetically I like the non-serial-comma style (I think it's my functional programming background - the style is better for recursion). Anyway, it seems like one reason to use the comma is phrases like "Steak, ham and cheese, and eggs" versus "steak, ham and cheese and eggs" versus "steak, ham, and cheese and eggs". But isn't it apparent that the same problem would crop up with a list that didn't include steak? "ham and cheese and eggs"? Are we supposed to throw weird commas into those phrases too? (Not a grammarian) Chicago 13:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it's good to devote time and energy to controversial but trivial topics, and not spend all one's time on the controversial and important (e.g. evolution!). Short answer to your last question, I think, is Yes. Or, to put it another way, even a non-serial-commaist should (IMHO, and in the opinion of many textbooks) use commas to introduce separations where the words alone don't make it clear. This is NOT an argument for routine use of a serial comma, just a piece of common-sense advice (comma-sense advice?) to use punctuation to make your meaning as clear as possible. I would be inclined to add one, for example, in a list-of-two such as the one I have just stuck at the top of this section of the talk page. And I like the point you make about the logic of the non-serial-comma style - that it merely extends the structure of a list-of-two to a list-of-more-than-two. Maybe that should be put into the article somewhere (if we can do so without provoking howls of protest!). Snalwibma 14:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I will just start using parentheses for lists and wait until everyone starts following my lead. (Yes, I am a LISP programmer) "I would like the following sandwiches: '(steak (ham cheese) eggs) or perhaps just '((ham cheese) eggs)."Chicago 14:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Dog
In olden times the general rule was "Punctuation should not be used unless there is a clear and compelling need." Alas, many authors felt a compelling need to use punctuation to fill spaces in their verbiage. The lack of adequate time to read such pleonasm led to the development of the modern short sentences and brief paragraphs. So in medieval times (when I went to school) punctuation was taught as a means of enhancing the sense of the text, rather than an ambiguous method of breath control.

Sadly, a movement arose to address the perceived absence of punctuation in modern literature. This culminated in the infamous Oxford/Harvard comma, deemed necessary to separate a final conjunction in a list. The Wiki article states that the proponents like it because it sometimes (my emphasis) reduced ambiguity and it matches the usage of other separators, for example the semi-colon. Which raises the obvious questions: Two, when did you last see a list separated by semi-colons? And one, if it only sometimes reduces ambiguity, why not use a syntactical construction when it does arise?

I resort to my original argument. The serial comma looks horrible. Not merely because it is redundant -- though that alone should be reason enough to abjure its use -- but because it is a symptom of sloth and indolence on the part of otherwise adequate writers. Its usage should be treated in the same way as greengrocers' apostrophes: with firm and generous application of the "Delete" key. Gordon | Talk, 14:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In olden times the general rule was "Punctuation should not be used unless there is a clear and compelling need."?! Have you read old texts? Read Ur Burial, read Shakespeare, read any novel from up to the late 1900s. We use less punctuation now than in olden times. Punctuation creates the rhythm of speech and clarifies meanings—its inherent roles. The following examples, for instance, have serial commas (long in use before the "modern movement" was active):


 * for there was exactly the very print of a foot, toes, heel, and every part of a foot — Robinson Crusoe


 * or only in provincial, local, and other local customs. — Gulliver's Travels


 * As hounds and greyhounds, mongrels, spaniels, curs,/ Sloughs, water-rugs, and demi-wolves are clept/ All by the name of dogs. — Macbeth


 * (I do not have any Middle English or Old English books in my bookshelf for reference of olden, olden times).


 * A comma is only one beat—which alone cannot compel an orator to abridge his sentences much. And the oxford comma is not a pleonasm, which is defined as follows:


 * the use of more words than are necessary to express an idea; redundancy.
 * an instance of this, as free gift or true fact.
 * a redundant word or expression.
 * [Origin: 1580–90; < LL pleonasmus < Gk pleonasmós redundancy, surplus, deriv. of pleonázein to be or have more than enough, itself deriv. of pleíōn more] (American Heritage Dictionary)


 * Verbiage does not feed on oxford commas; verbiage greedily feeds on words, especially abstract nouns and periphrases.


 * The oxford comma is not merely used for avoiding ambiguity. Say "Amy [pause] Brian [pause] Michael and Sally", and compare this to: "Amy [pause] Brian [pause] Michael [pause] and Sally". The latter models ideal speech better, which is what good writing should sound like. A good writer does not avoid punctuation unless compelled to use it—"I eat cherries and apples and apricots and berries and plums and bananas" is grammatical, but sounds like child-speak. Excess punctuation, on the other hand, looks archaic.


 * when did you last see a list separated by semi-colons? How about this: "The first contains the rock, paper, and scissors; the second contains the cup, spoon, and bowl; and the third contains everything else."? Semi-colons are used in lists; I have seen them quite often—even in wikipedia articles. But semi-colons have become less common in the modern age because writers generally prefer the simplest grammar—Lincoln's speeches would be far too complex for them.


 * if it only sometimes reduces ambiguity, why not use a syntactical construction when it does arise? Because the oxford comma is not as horrible as you imagine, and the only part is another false premise. Green grocers add apostrophes mindlessly, writers use the oxford comma deliberately. You might need to meditate this like a zen koan: the oxford comma is elegant. Rintrah 12:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The "(I do not have any Middle English or Old English books in my bookshelf for reference of olden, olden times)" bit above tweaked my nodule of curiosity, just slightly. That sent me to Chaucer's Treatise on the Astrolabe, which happened to be easily findable.  Therein, I noticed only one example of a comma-separated list: Under the compas of thilke degrees ben writen the names of the Twelve Signes: as Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricornus, Aquarius, Pisces.  I note that this Middle English list, rather than inserting the word and to introduce the terminal list item (with or without an Oxford/Harvard comma), simply treated the terminal item similarly to all other items in the list - separating it from the the preceding item with a comma but not specially distinguishing it as the terminal item.  This seems to me to make good sense. As the terminal-ness of the terminal item in a list can be recognized by the punctuation which follows it, the reader does not need to be alerted to its terminal-ness property by an introductory and.  The use of the word and to introduce the terminal item in a list is, however, too well established in Modern English to be challenged.


 * Me, I'm no grammarian, as must be apparent. When I looked through the earlier-referenced example of Chaucerian Middle English, though, and strove to find examples of the point at issue here by searching for the string ", and", I did not find many examples of lists but did find many, many examples where the ", and" construct was used in ways in which it would not be used in modern English.  This leads me to opine that examples from Middle English probably do not provide good guidelines for Modern English usage.  As a somewhat creaky but reasonably modern speaker of the American flavor of English, when I feel the need for grammatical guidance I usually turn to The Elements of Style.  This useful book is available online, and does include a section related to the point under discussion here (see ).


 * Suggestion: Move this discussion from this talk page to Talk:Serial comma. -- Boracay Bill 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And the oxford comma is not a pleonasm. I never said it was.  I needed a word that was not "verbosity" to continue from "verbiage".  It is true that verbiage doesn't feed on commas -- but commas were originally invented to guide breathing patterns, when literature was read aloud to an audience which was either illiterate or unable to afford the luxury of written entertainment.


 * Swift and Defoe are both excellent models of verbose writing, at least by our standards. You will find that their use of commas corresponded to Shakespeare's for exactly the same reason -- to facilitate public reading to an illiterate audience.  They needed the serial comma to place the pause which the conjunction could not.


 * A comma is only one beat—which alone cannot compel an orator to abridge his sentences much -- which was the ancient usage. "In the 3rd century BCE, Aristophanes of Byzantium invented a system of single dots (distinctiones) that separated verses (colometry) and indicated the amount of breath needed to complete each fragment of text when reading aloud (not to comply with rules of grammar, which were not applied to punctuation marks until thousands of years later)." (Comma (punctuation)


 * Say "...", and compare this to "...". The latter models ideal speech better, which is what good writing should sound like and Punctuation creates the rhythm of speech and clarifies meanings—its inherent roles.  No.  Good writing only models speech (of any distinction) when it is intended to be read aloud, as in poetry, or in quoted oral passages.  However, it is true that lists are often read aloud, as to subordinates or underlings.  Having said that, good writers are aware of the difference between the usages and will modify their style accordingly.


 * Punctuation marks are symbols that ... serve to indicate the structure and organization of writing, as well as intonation and pauses to be observed when reading it aloud. (Punctuation) According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "comma" comes directly from the Greek komma, which means "something cut off" or "a short clause."  As such, its purpose is to assist with separation and organisation of thoughts and ideas.


 * if it only sometimes reduces ambiguity, why not use a syntactical construction when it does arise?: ...the "only" part is another false premise. The premise is perfectly founded.  How many times is sometimes?  Obviously more than two, and equally obviously less than "many" or "frequently".  The Wiki article doesn't say "The serial comma reduces ambiguity with variable frequency, between rarely and almost always."  It says "sometimes".  Only sometimes.


 * Consider the example used by the article: "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God." The use of the serial comma gives us "To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God."  A superior, elegant construction could be "To God, my parents and Ayn Rand." or "To God, Ayn Rand and my parents."


 * We can pick up the The Australian Government Publishing Service's Style Manual, as illustrated in the article: "A comma is used before and, or, or etc. in a list when its omission might either give rise to ambiguity or cause the last word or phrase to be construed with a preposition in the preceding phrase:"
 * "The long days at work, the nights of intense study, and inadequate food eventually caused them serious health problems."
 * The example above shows how both ambiguity and construing are affected by removal of the serial comma.


 * One might resolve the koan: The tuxedo is serviceable. Gordon | Talk, 10:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And the oxford comma is not a pleonasm. I never said it was.  I needed a word that was not "verbosity" to continue from "verbiage".


 * I do not understand the last sentence.


 * My bad. I did not explain in meticulous and painful detail.  G 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Swift and Defoe are both excellent models of verbose writing, at least by our standards.


 * Robinson Crusoe is not written in a high register. The only possible reason it could sound verbose is the language might sound antiquated to modern ears. It is not any more verbose than modern writing; in fact, it is probably less so because Defoe uses words sparingly. Swift writes more descriptively and in a higher register, but does not write verbosely, except where he intends to for comic effect. I think you need to look up "verbose" again.


 * You will find that their use of commas corresponded to Shakespeare's for exactly the same reason -- to facilitate public reading to an illiterate audience. They needed the serial comma to place the pause which the conjunction could not.


 * "To facilitate public reading to an illiterate audience"? What are you talking about? They wrote works for private readers. Shakespeare, on the other hand, intended his dramatic works to be read aloud to a public audience. But commas were not merely expedient pause marks in either Shakespeare's or Swift's time. Do you actually have a plausible counter-argument?


 * I quite agree that both Swift and Defoe wrote for private readers. OTOH, those accounted for less than 50% of the general population.  The other 50% (lower class farm hands and other workers) were functionally illiterate, needing their pages read to them.  G 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * but commas were originally invented to guide breathing patterns,


 * Agreed.


 * ...when literature was read aloud to an audience which was either illiterate or unable to afford the luxury of written entertainment.


 * See last response above. Literacy was far from universal in C18 England, especially in the first quarter of the century.  G 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about Ancient Greece? How does this challenge my argument that punctuation does and ought to indicate pauses?


 * "In the 3rd century BCE, Aristophanes of Byzantium invented a system of single dots (distinctiones) that separated verses (colometry) and indicated the amount of breath needed to complete each fragment of text when reading aloud (not to comply with rules of grammar, which were not applied to punctuation marks until thousands of years later)." (Comma (punctuation))


 * Again, how does this actually challenge my argument? English is not Ancient Greek.


 * True. However, Aristophanes' distinctiones[sic] were the direct ancestors of the comma via the virgula suspensiva of Aldus Manutius among others.  G 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Good writing only models speech (of any distinction) when it is intended to be read aloud, as in poetry, or in quoted oral passages.  However, it is true that lists are often read aloud, as to subordinates or underlings.


 * Read any good writing aloud, following its punctuation carefully, and you will find it is also good speech. Is this a coincidence? No. Exemplary academic, journalistic, fiction, non-fiction, personal, public service, and business writing all sound pleasant to the ear when read aloud. They match good speech; therefore, they model good speech—the relationship is not merely coincidentallly correllated. That is, the quality of writing exactly corresponds to the quality of speech, all things being equal. Written words symbolise sounds, which in turn symbolise meanings. But you make it sound as if reading ideally should entirely be silent, in one's ear and head, and that sounds are just obstacles.


 * In medieval times, when I went to school, I was taught both to read aloud and to read silently. As the seasons passed, silent reading took precedence, to the extent that those who even moved their lips while reading "silently" were penalised.  BTW, I often read aloud.  In public.  And I frequently rearrange my breathing to match the authors' pauses.  G 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Having said that, good writers are aware of the difference between the usages and will modify their style accordingly.


 * I am not sure what you mean here.


 * Punctuation marks are symbols that ... serve to indicate the structure and organization of writing, as well as intonation and pauses to be observed when reading it aloud. (Punctuation)


 * I am not sure what this proves. If something ought never to be read aloud (though not because of secrecy), it is bad writing. Read any verbose mission statement and you will see that it is not meant to be read aloud—I can find examples if you want to try.


 * This proves that even a Wiki article can be ambiguous and therefore unreliable. G 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "comma" comes directly from the Greek komma, which means "something cut off" or "a short clause." As such, its purpose is to assist with separation and organisation of thoughts and ideas.


 * "comma" comes from Greek via Latin (not directly from Greek). What do you mean "As such"? "comma" now means a particular mark of punctuation, not the sentence fragment it cuts off. This is one example how words change over centuries.


 * Yes, its purpose is "to assist with separation and organisation of thoughts and ideas", but that is not its exclusive purpose—as the text you quoted above will tell you.


 * Just goes to show you can't trust Wiki articles. G 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * if it only sometimes reduces ambiguity, why not use a syntactical construction when it does arise?: ...the "only" part is another false premise. The premise is perfectly founded.


 * I said "it only sometimes reduces ambiguity" is false because it contains a hidden premise: i.e., its role is merely to "[reduce] ambiguity". It is not perfectly founded; my arguments above challenge it. For the new syntatical construction to be useful, one actually has to have a reason to abandon the serial comma. Rintrah 14:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah well. You see, when you say a premise is false, you really must explain the falsehood in the same statement, not in a response to to the original claim.  Again, I must draw attention to the unreliablity of Wiki articles which hide their premises!  G 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, one can use a syntactical construction to eliminate a serial comma without having any better reason than not liking the little blighters. G 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyhow, have a W... it should be evident that we will never agree on this subject. I rv'd a gratuitously inserted serial comma (it wasn't even a reversion itself!) and look what happens!  So -- pause to brush tears from eyes and cough to cover wobble in voice -- have a merry New Year, and I trust your Chanucah/Christmas/Eidul Adha were happy occasions.  Gordon | Talk, 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't feel like discussing it further, I understand. Happy new year, too. :-) Your humour is a little quirky; and, to tell the truth, I don't understand all of it. Rintrah 13:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Lauren, Madelyn and I...
I have just removed this newly added example of how a serial comma can resolve ambiguity (reproduced here without line breaks):
 * Lauren, Madelyn and I are going to the movies. / The person telling this statement is directing his/her comment to Lauren, stating that Madelyn and he/she are going to the movies. / Lauren, Madelyn, and I are going to the movies. / The person making this statement is directing his/her comment to someone else, stating that Lauren, Madelyn, and he/she are all going to the movies.

I don't think it's really relevant. The ambiguity is not created by non-use of a serial comma; it arises from not knowing the context. In context, you would know whether this was (a) a remark addressed to Lauren or (b) a remark about Lauren. Yes, out of context, the serial comma seems to resolve things - but that's not really the key to the ambiguity. Disgaree and discuss if you wish ... Snalwibma 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys
I learned a whole bunch from this article. I was also disturbed by the revelation that Mandela is a 800-year-old dildo collector. -Taco325i 17:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. You're allowed an hour a day on the internet at the madhouse? Don't forget to take those important drugs! Rintrah 13:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rintrah, I had hoped you would have retracted those unwarranted remarks by now (see my remark below). It is insolent and childish of you to impugn the mental health of a fellow Wikipedian, even jokingly. The humorous comment that you seem to be responding to (I was also disturbed by the revelation that Mandela is a 800-year-old dildo collector) is perfectly justified by the text of the article, as you can see for yourself. – Noetica 00:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Mommy, what's a dildo?"
is what my daughter just asked me. Dare I suggest another example? One equally comedic and illustrative? Onepointfive2.0 21:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you suggest replacing Dildo? -- Ian Dalziel 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By going on a date, usually. --71.134.233.179 07:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes Virginia, there is humour at Wikipedia.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 07:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are uncomfortable with the idea of your child asking about, or finding out about, what a dildo is, then your she has no business browsing Wikipedia. Or being on the Internet unsupervised at all, for that matter.  WP:NOT doesn't have a section, "Wikipedia is not a substitute for attentive parenting," but perhaps it should.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.101.97 (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree. I printed this otherwise excellent article for my ESL class handed it out without realizing it talked about dildos.  Forget about how I felt, my young female students were mortified!  Would anyone mind if I went ahead and edited it? Chrisrus (talk) 05:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would object, because (a) it is a useful, well-sourced and well-known example, and (b) Wikipedia is not censored. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 07:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Depends what you mean by "censored." If you could find another useful, well-sourced and well-known example, all else being equal...would you not agree that it would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 05:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is another example that (a) demonstrates the point equally well, (b) is as well-sourced, (c) is as well-known, (d) has the same recognition factor (both Ustinov and Mandela), and (e) uses the same degree of humour to make the point, I would agree that it might be as appropriate, but not "more appropriate". But what on earth is wrong with mentioning a dildo in an encyclopaedia? Are your sensibilities (and those you ascribe to the young female students) really that fragile? And it hardly seems fair to blame Wikipedia for your own failure to check the material before you hand it out to your students! <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 05:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don’t know if there is one that fulfills criteria (a), (b), (c), and (d), but I don’t think that (e) should be considered for an encyclopedia. The encyclopedia has never been expected to be funny, as that’s a completely subjective judgment and not its business.  If humor can be a criterion, why not encyclopediaishness?  What is there about humorousness that offensiveness, stupidity, awkwardness, inconvenience, disgustingness, annoyingness, inappropriateness, or distastefulness lack?  These are all just matters of opinion.  They also are all points of style that come into question when evaluating texts in terms of context and genre.


 * In response to your insinuation of professional neglect on my part, I feel the need to defend myself by trying to make you understand the context in which this happened, and ask that you do so in good faith. Put yourself in my position.  An ESL writing clinic is broken up into individuals and small groups writing and editing their essays.  A debate breaks out among students on this issue.  The teacher strives to meet with each student individually and monitor all groups while a computer hooked up to the internet and a printer sits idly by just for such a moment.  What would you do?  Be sure to instruct the students not to read the article until you’d thoroughly scanned it for dildo references?


 * Maybe I should have known. Maybe I should learn my lesson and know better than to trust Wikipedea to strive for an encyclopedia-like tone instead of one more appropriate for, oh, I donno, Esquire magazine or something.  Better to use a real encyclopedia next time, do you agree?--Chrisrus (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your mistake was to use an encylopedia anyone can edit for educational purposes, surely you must have text books with examples?(82.3.47.202 (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Yes, that's true. Wikipedia isn't good enough because some people don't want it to be.  I've learned my lesson.  I just think we all would want to improve it so that it could be.  I bring in my copy of Webster's Usage dictionary or send them to real on-line encyclopedias now.  It's too bad some don't care enough about making Wikipedia good enough.Chrisrus (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Reversion
Why was Slimvirgin's version reverted? I preferred hers to the present one. What is this "delicate consensus" anyhow? Rintrah 13:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You preferred it? Good for you! But let's see some extended discussion here before such a radical revision, which obliterated much carefully laid-out information, and set aside the results of painstaking discussion and careful deliberation, the evidence for which is plainly visible above.


 * By the way, I hope you will withdraw your aspersions directed against another editor just now. That editor was expressing thanks to us, and making a joke that draws on some humorous content of the article. Please reconsider your un-Wikipedic slander! – Noetica 13:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Noetica, the current intro is too long; see WP:LEAD. It also contains too much detail for a lead; for example, "[s]ometimes the term is also used for the comma that may come before etc. at the end of a list (see the Australian Government Publishing Service's Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers, below). Such an extension is reasonable, since etc. abbreviates the Latin phrase et cetera, meaning and other things."


 * It's too much detail, hard to understand, it's not entirely clear that it's accurate or relevant, and what does "reasonable" mean? There are a few sentences like that in the current lead. I think it should be shortened. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 13:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's better, SlimVirgin! I agree with you that the material is too long as a lead. It grew to accommodate many subtle differences of opinion, the record of which appears above. Still, the material has a place. Why don't we first of all just treat the existing first paragraph as the lead, and retain the remainder as an introduction, headed Introduction, in fact? It does function that way, after all. As for your question about the word reasonable, I think it expresses a reasonable concern! But the meaning is clear in the context, and it is not merely POV. A reason is, after all, given.


 * This article is almost certainly the most comprehensive and soigné treatment of the serial comma anywhere on the web. It may even be the most useful and most accessible in any form, print or otherwise. Let's not lose that all-important and hard-won detail, just because it is detail! – Noetica 14:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Put the arguments for and against the serial comma in another section; they don't belong in the lead, anyway. The parenthetical comment at the end, of little interest to the reader, should be relegated to a footnote. Rintrah 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone has done this. Problem solved. Rintrah 15:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that the problem is now solved. This has been a small success story, showing how the Wikipedia system can work! A short lead, and then all of the copious and well-ordered detail that makes for a fine article. As it stands, this appears to be still the best treatment of the serial comma to be found. Myself, I have just one or two other details to add. I'll get to them shortly. I don't agree that any pertinent details should be dismissed as "of little interest to the reader". Readers are many and various; some are delighted to see detail that is not conveniently assembled anywhere else, or even available at all on the web. Compare Apostrophe and Dash, by the way. – Noetica 00:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God.
this isn't, as far as I can tell, related to the topic of serial comma's. As this is an aside (forgive me if I use the wrong term), not a list. It's "To my parents and God", with 'Ayn Rand' added as an elaboration of 'my parents', not: to:<ul><li>My Parents</li><li>Ayn Rand</li><li>God</li></ul>(lingistics isn't my major, and almost feel that if there really was an error someone alot smarter then me would of found it already; so sorry if I just wasted your time reading this :) ) {i986@2007.03.02 08:08 GMT}
 * It is a list, and illustrates a pitfall in not using a serial comma. When written as "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God", there's two interpretations. The first is that there's three items - the first is the author's parents, the second is Ayn Rand, and the third is God. The second is that "Ayn Rand and God" is an apposition, specifically naming the author's august parents.
 * Use of a serial comma (i.e. "To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God") leaves only the three-item interpretation viable. I'm not sure how you interpret Ayn Rand to be an apposition to the parents, seeing as she's but one woman. --Xanzzibar 08:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This comment illustrates that the article needs to make it clear who Ayn Rand is (that is, not the speaker's mother). It's a good example, but most of the examples (especially Betty-maid-cook) are just poor writing. The article should emphasize that restructuring the sentence is the surest way to avoid ambiguity ("...their daughter Betty, along with a maid and a cook"), but such a recomendation needs a citation. --Tysto (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is all wrong. First, you are responding to a comment about the "my parents" example as if it were about the "my mother" example. Second, in the "my mother" example, that we don't know whether Ayn Rand is the speaker's mother is what makes the phrase ambiguous, and is the whole point of the example . Finally: "The article should emphasize that restructuring the sentence is the surest way to avoid ambiguity" -- no; Wikipedia is not a style guide or an instruction book on good writing. This article is about the serial comma -- what it is and what works on grammar have to say about it. It is not a place for Wikipedia editors to express their own opinions about the serial comma -- nor is this talk page. If editors would stick their job, we wouldn't have the sorry spectacle on this page of one editor after another displaying their intellectual ineptnness. -- 98.108.220.157 (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

American or British English?
There's been a fair amount of back-and-forth lately about what style of English to maintain on this page. I haven't been watching too closely, but I think the article originally favored British style punctuation. However, several editors have been making changes to make it follow American style usage more recently (most notably, comma positions relative to quotation marks, and the use of the serial comma itself). I think some consensus should be reached before the back-and-forth starts getting silly. --Xanzzibar 07:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have noticed this too! There is a recent addition of a comment about Lynne Truss which uses two -ize spellings (though of course -ize is perfectly acceptable British English too), and various insertions of serial commas, and now an anon contribution which changes the placing of quote marks and punctuation to US style. But the article does not use serial commas, so it's a bit of a mixture. I think it was once consistently BritEng in its style. I would certainly favour consistent use of one style or the other (this is, after all, an artucle about niceties of punctuation!), and if I had to express a preference it would be for British style - if only because the majority of casual visitors to the page are probably American, and probably think that the serial-comma style is "right" and the non-serial-comma style is "wrong", and perhaps suffer from a more general delusion that American usage is always better, and need to be taught a lesson! ;-) Snalwibma 07:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a native speaker of Portuguese who was taught primarily British English at school, but who later converted to American English upon coming to the US as a student for my PhD (in engineering, not in English !). Given my native Portuguese background and my original British English education, I had never used a serial comma prior to coming to America (actually, I used to find it very odd whenever I saw one !). However, the first time I had to write a conference paper as a PhD student, my American adviser told me it was "wrong" not to use a serial comma before "and" in a list and demanded that I always used it (as I have been doing since then in all my technical writing, even though I still find it awkward). Anyway, I guess that illustrates the general American attitude mentioned above about "right" and "wrong" as far as English spelling is concerned. 161.24.19.82 13:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Its not just "American attitude," it is towards basically everyone who prefers one style or another, it happens with our little nuisance differences between our countries, which is silly to spat over in my opinion. Anyway, for the serialized commas to be *THE* American style, then official publications sure don't use it a lot. Associated Press and most publications don't use the serialized comma and they practically run the country in terms of stylizations. I tend to use serialized myself strictly on a grammatical level, but I use the non-serialized for my papers. For medicine and medical purposes, I think serialized is the best, there is a chance that a long list, without a comma, could lead to a possible bad diagnosis; which is probably why it is the standard for the medical field. Theseven7 14:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The talk page is within the WikiProject University of Oxford so surely it uses British English. Tayste (talk - contrib) 08:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources?
The tag has just been added. Why? Most of the article consists of quotations from sources, with full references given. The reference format needs tidying up, but that's all. Snalwibma 07:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with you, Snalwibma. One could always apply such a tag, let's face it. But this article does an exceptionally good job of citation and cautious exposition. I'll remove that tag right now. Let anyone who re-applies it give detailed reasons, here on the talk page, for singling out this article for such treatment. And also let them be aware that no one is safe from such impositions.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 08:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the tag to the section "Arguments for and against" because an assertion of arguments is particularly in need of sources, and there are none there. I'll put it back. Dicklyon 14:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's just a nuisance, Dicklyon. But to humour you I have added what in any other article would be accepted by reasonable editors as reasonable documentation of sources. I draw your attention also to the last words of the lead in WP:MOS:
 * "If a rule keeps you from writing an informative, useful encyclopedia, ignore it."
 * Here the task of producing an informative, useful article calls not only for careful citation, but also for close argument, and a survey of typical arguments that is reviewed and approved by a good number of skilled and experienced editors. The article does all that, and does it well. As I have said before, no better treatment of the serial comma is to be found on the web – or anywhere else, probably. If you disagree, show us a better one (we can then cite it!), or work hard yourself on this article, or both. But narrow legalism can compromise such high quality as we have achieved here: so spare us that, please.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 06:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well said, Noetica. There is a tendency for people to see original research in anything which isn't umbilically connected, sentence by sentence, to external sources. In effect, the Arguments for and against section is saying "if you read the copious sources below, you will find these arguments" - and that seemed fine to me. Your additions of a couple of specific citations is, to my taste, possibly unnecessary - and too much of it would degrade the readability of the article - but thank you! Snalwibma 07:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Both
The little dispute about both in "Both writers and editors disagree on the use of the serial comma" is not entirely empty. Without both, it might be thought that writers have one opinion, and editors another. Both shows that members of the groups are all in the same situation, disagreeing among themselves. I'll try a third way alternative. Please reflect carefully on the nuances, and don't edit precipitately!–&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 22:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A and B and C
Anthony Appleyard 09:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What are rhe rules about putting another "and" in to resolve the ambiguity? This type of forms (often used colloquially) is not ambiguous:-
 * To my parents and Ayn Rand and God.
 * My favourite types of sandwiches are pastrami, and ham, and cream cheese and jam, and peanut butter.
 * Betty and a maid and a rabbit.

Anthony, you are a genius!

Have a look at these examples:

a) To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God.

b) To my pareets, Ayn Rand and God.

c) To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God.

d) To my mother, Ayn Rand and God.

e) To my parents, and Ayn Rand and God.

f) To my parents, and Ayn Rand, and God.

g) To my mother, and Ayn Rand and God.

h) To my mother, and Ayn Rand, and God.

The first four are all potentially ambiguous, but none of the last four are to the same degree, but f) and h) are unmistakable. I don't know what the "rule" is, (Who's to say, anyway?) so I can't answer your question directly, but I can tell what it is in my class as of right now: If ambiguity is a problem, an extra "and" is a good solution, but if any remains, the extra "and" should be supported with a serial comma. Chrisrus (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lists should normally name like items (all names, all occupations, or whatever). Mixing them is what gets you into trouble. When you need to talk about non-like items, you should restructure and not present them as a list (no one is forcing you to use a list in the first place). It would be best (in my opinion) if the article could provide a citation to that effect. As an aside, example B here makes me want to buy two parrots, name them "Ayn Rand" and "God" and write a book dedicated to them. I would use a colon to avoid this mess. "To my parrots: Ayn Rand and God." --Tysto (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Implication of possible linkage between the last two items in a list...
The article addresses certain ambiguities, such as apposition, but one ambiguity doesn't seem to be mentioned. This one seems to happen in a large percentage, perhaps even a majority, of cases where the serial comma is not used. And that is the implication that last two items in a list are, or at least may be, somehow linked...

For example: "The party was attended by Maggie, Tracy, Benjamin, Thomas, Sarah, Mike and Lisa."

"The party was attended by Maggie, Tracy, Benjamin, Thomas, Sarah, Mike, and Lisa."

In the second case it would automatically be clear to me that this was just a listing of individual in attendance, but in the first one (without the last comma) I would likely get the impression, at least momentarily, that perhaps Mike and Lisa were a couple. And I know that if that's what was intended to be written then there'd probably be another "and" before "Mike and Lisa," but still, whenever I read a list like this without the pause provided by that last comma it just doesn't sound right. It happens to me almost every time I read a list in the newspaper! Maybe I'm just weird that way? :-P

Has anyone else had this problem, and should we try to incorporate something about that into the article? Helvetica 06:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting observations, Helvetica, but I don't think what is essentially original research (based on your own response to the absence of a serial comma) would belong in the article itself. What you are describing is in fact not a specific "type of ambiguity" but just a description of the overall question of whether or not to use a serial comma. I think the key to it, actually, is when you say "it would automatically be clear to me ... whenever I read a list ... it happens to me ..." I suggest that it "doesn't sound right" for the simple reason that you are (I assume!) used to the convention of using a serial comma. Believe me, for someone accustomed to the "other tradition", the final comma in "Sarah, Mike, and Lisa" looks intrusive, and throws me off balance. It's as if Lisa is an afterthought instead of an integral member of the list. The lack of comma doesn't make for a close link between Mike and Lisa; it rather shows (a) that Lisa belongs to the whole group and (b) that the list is now coming to a natural end. I assure you that I have just as many "problems" reading serial-comma lists as you do reading no-serial-comma lists! It is solely a matter of what you are used to. Oh, and for sure there are particular circumstances where either one system or the other isn't quite as crystal-clear as it might be - but hey, that's language for you! Snalwibma 08:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Snalwibma - I wasn't proposing to add "original research" to the article - that's why I brought it up here on the talk page for brain-storming. And, just so you know, I've been exposed to both conventions from a very early age - American newspapers have been omitting commas for quite some time now. At the university I attended, the Journalism department taught to omit it, while the English department (and most other departments) used MLA, or other similar style guides, which included it. So it's not that I just happen to be more "used" to one way than the other - it's that the use has always made more sense to me than the omission. When you read a list as it's written, and the serial comma is not used, then there's not a pause before the "and," and this can create the impression of linkage. Just a quick Google search came up with this very same analysis, so it should be included in the article (with citations) as one of the arguments against omission. Excerpt from the article:


 * My original assertion stands, with minor qualifications: Except for journalists, all American authorities say to use the final serial comma: "He went to the store to buy milk, butter, and eggs."


 * The reason for the final serial comma is to prevent the last 2 items' being confused as a unit (butter-and-eggs).

Helvetica 04:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, fine - I got the impression from your original posting that you were just describing your own "feelings"! But if you have a source for its use as an argument in favour of the serial-comma convention, go ahead and add it to the "arguments in favour" list (though is the source you refer to really more than a smartly-dressed-up blog, consisting of one person expressing personal opinions?). Of course, I also stand by my own assertions: It's only a convention. Neither system is "better" than the other. Both produce clearer results in some circumstances and less clear in others. Many many publishers follow the no-serial-comma convention (don't be bullied by all those people, as at the website you refer to, telling you that "everybody" recommends it, which is simply untrue!). It's largely a matter of what you're used to. Snalwibma 09:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking again at the article you propose as a source... It really is a misinformed rant by someone who uses a carefully picked selection of "authorities" to support his/her own opinion. It's rubbish, in fact. To claim that "The only authorities who advocate omitting the final comma are newspaper style guides (which wish to save column space) and some English writers (who waffle on the rule)" is simply wrong. Who is this person? On what authority does he/she speak on the matter? The article you refer to is an example of the sort of biased and ill-informed nonsense which our wikipedia article so successfully avoids! Having said that, I'd still like to see an addition of the "too strong a link between the final to items" point to the list of arguments in favour, if a decent source can be found, and if it can be expressed clearly and succinctly. Snalwibma 10:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This was just one example of what I found in a quick Google search. To clarify, what she says is "Except for journalists, all American authorities say to use the final serial comma." And I believe that is true. With the exception of style-guides for journalists, I don't believe there is any major American manual of style which doesn't call for the inclusion of the serial comma. Anyhow, I will do some further research before expanding the article. It's likely that one of the manuals of style themselves, such as the MLA, actually includes this same argument - that the last two items in a list could be seen as one unit. We'll also see what other Wikipedians here may come up with :-)

Helvetica 16:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Punctuation, particularly in the US, was standardized quite recently (i.e. the last 150 years) and mandatory use of the serial comma arose as a consquence of foolish consistency more than the accurate notation of spoken language, the Oxford style manual not withstanding.


 * As a reference work Wikipedia must evenhandedly put forth the opposing positions, but in its own recommnded usage may do as it (i.e. its Wikipedians) prefer, and the ultimate test is ambiguity and lack thereof.


 * Further, en.wikipedia.org is the English language Wikipedia, not Wiki USA, and should reflect worldwide use, which runs against the serial comma. Proposed, then, to use a serial comma when doing so eliminates ambiguity and not when it does not.


 * NB I am advocating not using the serial comma under most circumstances; in many cases it makes no difference whether it's there or not, and I say, "When in doubt, leave it out!" Robert Greer (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Some good points, and thank you - though perhaps you should take your suggestions to Wikipedia talk:Manual of style rather than here, which is meant to be a discussion about the article rather than about the serial comm as such. I hope you notice that our article on the serial comma does as you say, and uses a serial comma only where necessary to avoid ambiguity. Or at least I hope it does - I am forever deleting one from the list of languages that do not use a serial comma! Snalwibma (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I'll do so! This is the flip side of French spacing. Robert Greer (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"The preferred default"
In the context of this well-written and otherwise balanced article, the conclusion that any style is generally preferred seems a tad implausible. On the contrary, opinion appears to be rather divided, with some historical, regional and occupational variations in evidence. The claim might even be regarded as a contradiction of the earlier statement that "there is no consensus among writers or editors on the use of the serial comma."

To avoid looking like a personal opinion, any suggestion here of a preferred default should be appropriately qualified, given context and verified (as is the regional usage alluded to in the intro). Until this can be done, it might be better to omit the passage, so I'm removing it for now. If anyone disagrees with this, perhaps we can thrash it out here.

Thanks. --Error -128 (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I added the "fact" tag a month or so ago. No one has added any citation or supporting evidence, so it's time that claim was removed. I think it would be OK to call it a "preferred default" in the context of "this is one of the arguments offered in support of using the serial comma" - but with no evidence to back it up as an argument that is actually used anywhere, it should go. And now it has. Thanks! Snalwibma (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

To my parents, Ayn Rand and God
The references to Ayn Rand and God were recently removed, with the edit comment "this is not an appropriate venue for incongruous surrealist propaganda about Ayn Rand (Nor would she approve of that, I'm sure)". I have reverted this change and reinstated the phrase, because it is in fact a well-known and oft-used example in the context of the serial comma - see, for example, a Google search for "Ayn Rand and God". Perhaps we need to track down the origin of the example, but it is certainly THE well-known one, and should be here. It's much better than the lame "Anne and David" that was inserted in its place. Besides, I think Ayn Rand would thoroughly approve! Snalwibma (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, using the example of "Anne and David" may lead to confusion for readers, namely if it is believed that the speaker's parents are named Anne and David. Using Ayn Rand and God as the examples, however, should lead to no confusion, as virtually no reader will believe that the speaker's parents are Ayn Rand and God. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ... except that the whole point is that the phrase is ambiguous, and leaves open the possibility that the writers parents are indeed Ayn Rand and God. That's why it's funny, and "Anne and David" isn't. Snalwibma (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The obvious solution is to insert the reference to the published "Ayn Rand and God" quote. I have done so since I had the book on my shelf. --Bonadea (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The ambiguity in such phrases can be eliminated simply by changing word order: "To Ayn Rand, God, and my parents."... but strangely, I still included a serial comma in that example without thinking. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Style of Article Should Use Serial Comma
Given that this article is most likely to be used as a resource for those looking for information regarding the definition and use of serial commas, the style of the article (excluding specfic examples of sentences not using a serial comma) should use serial commas where appropriate. Omitting the commas reflects clear bias against its use, suggesting to visitors that the very subject of the article is superflous, and introducing additional controversy over the comma's use that is not reflective of the views of the language community. Foxhound199 (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2008


 * In that case using the comma would reflect clear bias in favour of its use, surely? Shouldn't that read the views of Foxhound199, rather than the views of "the language community"? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would further argue that since the majority of WP readers are probably more familiar with American than with British English, and therefore more used to the style that uses the serial comma, it is a good idea to use the no-serial-comma style in this article. Reading the article then becomes an education in itself, the point being that (in spite of what you may have been told at school) the "language community" does not have a uniform view on the serial comma, and the well-established style that does not use it routinely is just as good, just as clear and just as "correct" as that which does. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 14:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree with some of these points. While it is true that demonstrating that the serial comma is not universally used is a critical topic to address in this article, I can't agree that it should be the standard style in which the article is written in in order to increase exposure and awareness in readers.  On the other hand, I understand that using the serial comma may achieve the opposite purpose, implicitly arguing that style guides against its use are wrong.  Therefore, it may be in the best interest of the objectivity of the article to eliminate such a choice situation from even arising.  Besides, the language list is rather cumbersome, far from exhaustive, and could be illustrated just as well by saying that many languages do not use the serial comma.  --Foxhound199 (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a point. I have rewritten that troublesome list of languages in such a way as to avoid the should-it-shouldn't-it question, and while I was at it I reduced it to include only the four for which a reference is provided. It has been quite fun doing the daily revert, but ultimately pointless, I guess! OK? <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 09:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

ObVampireWeekend

 * ...laments the woes of what the band considers to be excessive attention to the comma's use.

Since that's more interpretation than there is lyric in the song on the matter, I think we're well into OR territory here, unless there's a reliable source claiming this that'd be worth citing. But isn't the whole thing rather "trivia section"-ish in the first place? Alai (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is already a (possibly unnecessary) cross-reference to Oxford Comma (song) at the top of the article. I'd be in favour of deleting the entire "cultural references" section in its present state. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 06:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded on the removal preference, Snalwibma. No responses to your comment as of November, I'm removing it. The tone of the article will be much more consistent and academic without this section.JGray (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 11:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to quote "authorities that recommend it" in the lead
I have just (not for the first time) reverted an amendment by User:RafaelRGarcia. Let me explain in more words than I can use in an edit summary. I do not for a moment dispute that American authorities (not to mention all sorts of blogs and other websites) tend to recommend (or even insist on) the serial comma, but the lead already says that the serial comma "is closer to being standard use in American English than it is in British English", and directs the reader to more detailed treatment, with copious sources, later in the article. There is no need to insert a further comment plugging the American approach at this point. To do so merely repeats what is covered later. This is not the right place for this statement, and inserting it into the lead like this looks like pro-serial-comma POV pushing. The article steers a very careful NPOV course, and it is important that it should stay that way. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 07:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You have consistently edited this article to be anti-serial comma. Your agenda is very clear. Both US and UK sources each have a parenthetical in that sentence in the lead. There's no problem with that; the sentence is structured in a parallel form. This article is not really neutral; people like you try to make it anti-serial comma. For example, you tried to say there's "no consensus" on usage; when I clarified that there was no "global consensus" (because most American sources recommend the use, and depending on the field, the consensus is very clear), you reverted my edits. That is not right, and this article will remain on my watchlist. Do not turn this into an edit war.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me. I am completely neutral. I have never "edited this article to be anti-serial comma", and my agenda is entirely to do with maintaining NPOV. The reference in the sentence is a reference for the fact that there is no consensus, not a reference in support of the no-serial-comma style. It does indeed come from a UK source, but it is actually from a source that recommends the serial comma! But you're right that "global" is a good addition, and apologies for deleting that word by mistake. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 08:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now made it one sentence for the US, and one sentence for the UK. I don't see how this isn't fair.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the function of the reference to the Oxford style guide in that sentence. It is not a reference "against" the serial comma, or "for" British style, and therefore requires no "balancing reference". It is a source that points out that there is no consensus, and additionally explains the name "Oxford comma". In fact, it also (in the preceding sentence, not quoted) says that the serial comma must be used in OUP style. But the point is that at this stage in the article we are not citing pro- and anti-serial-comma authorities, but simply stating that there is no global consensus, and referring the reader to the later sections of the article where the details (and the references) are given. I will attempt to rework the reference, possibly quoting slightly more of what the OUP guide says, in an effort to clarify. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 08:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the serial comma is standard use in one area, and not in another, so it's reasonable to spend a sentence on each.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Or half a sentence, with a single reference encompassing both halves – which was exactly how it was before your amendment! Also, I do not think it is right to use the reference you have done, because it comes up later, in the section headed "Style guides supporting mandatory use". That is surely a better place to give that level of detail. At this stage, it is sufficient to say (a) there is no consensus; (b) tendency is UK=no, US=yes. I am going to attempt one more change, encompassing both the lead and the use of this reference in the later section. Please bear with me. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 08:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is wrong simply to state in the lead that most authorities in the US recommend the use. It's not like that's going to swallow up the rest of the world. Yes, the later section does expound on the issue in more detail, but the lead is supposed to give a short summary. Not everyone is going to bother to read the whole article; only people who really care about the issue probably do so. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that precisely what "It is closer to being standard in American English than it is in British English" does? And I have now expanded the OUP reference so that (in addition to saying that there is no consensus) it makes it quite clear that Americans like the serial comma. I want to avoid clogging up the simple story of the lead by quoting rival "authorities". <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 09:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That sentence is not specific enough. It could be 40% standard use in America, and 20% in Britain, and that sentence would still be true. I am re-editing. Saying it's "closer to standard use" trivializes the serial comma and doesn't capture the divide in usage trends. Because in legal, academic, professional, etc. writing, it's used, and in journalism, it's not. Specifying that most authorities recommend it in the lead is critical. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But what you have now done ("it is not standard use in British English") does not accurately reflect the UK situation! It is more complex than that. The "divide" is by no means as stark as you appear to think (e.g. several UK publishers that do, and US newspapers that don't), and I think all that we can safely say in the lead is that on the whole it is used in the USA (and Canada?) but not in the UK or elsewhere - which is precisely what the previous formulation ("it is closer to being standard...") did. Once you start inserting the authorities you find yourself going down a route that inevitably overcomplicates what should be a simple summary. The detail comes later - and it's already there, in buckets! For the moment I'll leave your reference in place - though, for reasons stated above, I think it is completely unnecessary - but I will do a little edit to try and reintroduce the nuance. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 09:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's fine as it is right now. I hope someone doesn't try to change it again. I was speaking to the "divide" in the US, not the UK. The "closer to being standard" line is just too vague to be useful, and I'm thinking about people who wouldn't bother to read the whole article - most people. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK - point taken (though I still don't understand why that reference is necessary at that point, when it comes up again later as an "authority that recommends..."). I appreciate your point that "closer to being standard" was probably too vague. I hope that by now you realise that I am not editing the article in an "anti-serial comma" way. In fact, IRL, I use serial commas as often as not (though it depends who and what I'm writing for). It occurs to me that the two "sides" are not pro- and anti-; rather, there is one side that says "always" and another that says "not routinely but sometimes". Maybe this is a subtlety that the article doesn't quite bring out. Another day, perhaps. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 06:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename of article?
I'm thinking that this page should be moved to "Oxford Comma" because I feel it is a more commonly used name to describe this comma. Could I please have some feedback? Thanks. EryZ (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Maybe "Oxford comma" has received some recent publicty because of this, but the proper term is serial comma. There are redirects from Oxford comma and Harvard comma, so no one should be inconvenienced by us sticking to the more generic, (and more "correct"!) name. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 10:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely you cannot state that 'serial comma' is correct or proper without any proof? Also, everyone I know uses 'oxford comma' rather than 'serial comma'. If you search "serial oxford comma" on google, oxford comma is shown more times than 'serial comma', on the first page alone (serial appears 11 times whereas oxford appears 20 times). Of course, since there are redirects, no-one IS inconvenienced, but we dont see the lettuce article named 'Lactuca sativa' just because it is more correct, eh?EryZ (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pulling two style guides off my shelf at random... Chicago Manual of Style (American) and Butcher's copy-editing (British). Both of them have an entry for "serial comma" in the index; neither has "Oxford comma". The Oxford Guide to Style (perhaps not surprisingly) does index it under Oxford comma, but the text says "this last serial (or series) comma ... has come to be called the 'Oxford comma'." - which I think means that it is a serial comma, and is sometimes called an Oxford comma. Not even OUP is claiming anything more than that it is often called an Oxford comma. Perhaps a clearer reference is required somewhere near the start of the article - though the relevant passage from the Oxford manual is already quoted in footnote 4. I'll look at it when I have time, unless anyone else cares to beat me to it. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 07:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly support move (back) to "Oxford comma". "Serial comma" is less precise or ambiguous, because it can refer to any comma in a series, not only that between the final two items of that series.   It is also the case that the issue most often arises when writing for OUP, Harvard or other academic publishers. It's certainly more common to use "Oxford comma" in the UK in popular usage (e.g. a Colin Dexter novel epigraph) and in articles about it, but the song indicates to me that the same is true worldwide.--Cedderstk 16:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely oppose any change of name. Serial comma is much more widely used and recognised, and avoids needless skirmishing about provincialism and regional bias. Stick with the dominant term, as used in most published sources.
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! T– 02:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose change of name. Correct name (as many sources show) is serial comma.  GNUSMAS :  TALK  06:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose change of name, as this has been discussed before. See the previous archive.  Best, Sam nead (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

University of Oxford vs Oxford comma
According to the article, the University of Oxford Writing and Style Guide opposes the use of the Oxford comma. That is slightly confusing. Ceinturion (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to be confused! The University of Oxford and Oxford University Press are two distinct organisations, each with its own practices and recommendations. I have added a reference for the University of Oxford Writing and Style Guide. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 20:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

State specific forms of ambiguity
While the article mentions that ambiguity in a general sense results from either use or non-use of the Oxford comma, it seems readily apparent that only one kind of ambiguity can result from either. For use of the comma, the problem is the reader may see an appositive where there is none; with omitting the comma, the reader may join two list items that should be separate. These are specific forms of ambiguity that I believe should be stated directly by the article rather than just weakly implied. Jepflast (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

x and y and z
This construction may still be ambiguous, in the case that "x and y" or "y and z" may be interpreted as compound entries in the list (e.g. "peanut butter and jelly and cream cheese"--which, by the way, is actually a pretty good sandwich). mzellman (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But if you actually use it in a complete sentence, there usually isn't ambiguity. My three favorite foods are peanut butter and jelly and cream cheese. My favorite sandwich is peanut butter and jelly and chream cheese. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent wholesale rewrite
I have just undone this version. It did contain some small improvements, but also (a) far too many grammatical errors and (b) a POV slant towards the serial comma as "normal" and non-use of it as a deviation. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 07:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been asked to provide details.
 * 1) Grammar. I won't go through every grammatical error in the version that I reverted, but by way of example let's look at the first sentence: The serial comma (aka the Oxford comma and the Harvard comma) is the comma used immediately before a grammatical conjunction — mostly and, or, and nor — preceding the final item of a list of three or more items, thus, the phrases: “Portugal, Spain, and France” (with the comma) and “Portugal, Spain and France” (without the comma) are identical in meaning. My objections (not all grammatical, but two of them are): (a) "aka" is an obscure and unnecessary abbreviation; (b) the punctuation around "thus" is wrong; (c) the colon after "phrases" is wrong.
 * 2) POV. The claim that "Serial comma usage is unambiguous" at the start of the "resolving ambiiguity" section is incorrect and biased, and the sneaky use of italics in "Using a serial comma can introduce ambiguity" at the start of the next section also suggests bias.

In general, the rephrasing – e.g. from Many sources, however, are against both automatic use and automatic avoidance of the serial comma, making recommendations in a more nuanced way to Moreover, some sources oppose automatic usage and automatic avoidance of the serial comma, instead, recommending its nuanced usage (note also the mis-punctuation here) – makes the meaning less clear. I could go on, but I won't. There were a few minor improvements, and it might be worth picking over the reverted version in search of them – but as a whole it represented a significant reduction in accuracy and clarity. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 13:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To gnusmas re "Betty, a maid and a rabbit"
An editor might want to change "...Betty, a maid and a rabbit" to avoid the ambiguity that could strike the reader as laughable. The unintended joke lies in the two facts that 1)Betty can't be both, and 2) the sentence can hit the reader to be saying that she is. Undoing this section based on the justification that Betty obviously can't be both is missing the point.

To clarify, notice why the misplaced modifier is a problem in this case:

"Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg address while traveling to the battlefield on the back of an envelope."

It's bad not because we can't understand what the author must have obviously meant. Of course we can disregard the possibility of Lincoln actually having traveled there on the back of an envelope. That's not the point. The absurdity in the example is used to emphasize the ambiguity.

However, you do bring up a good point. Why not use another example with plausible ambiguity? Doing so would avert such misunderstandings. How about "Betty, a maid and a soldier" vs. "Betty, a maid, and a soldier"? or some such? Chrisrus (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My problem with your edit (and the original contribution by Apotheon) was that it gave advice ("the sentence should probably be clarified"), which is not the role of Wikipedia, and in particular is not the function of this section of the article. Here, the point is that the serial-comma convention can sometimes cause ambiguity, just as the convention that does not use it can. The examples of "solutions" in the edit also were written in a serial-comma style, and this is inappropriate in this section of the article. But I take the point about the rabbit. I have changed it to a Catholic priest, which must by definition be a man, and therefore cannot be Betty or the maid. Does this help?  GNUSMAS :  TALK  07:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Point taken.
 * What needs to be done, however, is to illustrate the point more clearly by coming up with an example which could actually cause some honest confusion, unlike a priest or a rabbit, which our background knowledge tells us that she can’t be, so the “confusion” isn’t really real. Examples such as these would be better:
 * "Betty, a maid and a policewoman" vs. "Betty, a maid, and a policewoman".
 * If we should go for a laugh, we could choose:
 * “…Betty, a maid and a cow” vs. “Betty, a maid, and a cow.”
 * Or
 * “…Betty, a maid and a pig” vs. “Betty, a maid, and a pig.”
 * That's funny to me, but someone might be offended. We could choose something like "a sweetheart" or "an all-around great gal".
 * Chrisrus (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing the point of this section of the article. If you have "Betty, a maid and a cow” it is ambiguous because "a maid and a cow" could be read as a unit, in apposition to Betty. On the other hand, "Betty, a maid, and a cow” is ambiguous because it is unclear whether "a maid" is in apposition to Betty or the second item in a list of three. So those examples would belong in the next section, describing situations where neither the serial-comma style nor the no-serial-comma style solves the problem. In this section of the article the issue is situations in which a serial comma introduces ambiguity that is not present in the no-serial-comma style. So it is important that there is no possibility of reading items 2 and 3 as describing the same person. That is why (I assume) the rabbit was there, and that is why I picked a priest, who (in the Catholic church) must be a man. If you want humour, I suggest we revert to the rabbit - precisely because "our background knowledge tells us that she can’t be."  GNUSMAS :  TALK  07:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How is background knowledge interference helpful? Background knowldge interference is bad. Why should background knowledge betray the meaning? Explain why background knowledge interference is helpful.

Rabbit is definately less likely to interfere than priest, but even that has, surprisingly to me, caused a reader to cast about for a plausible meaning of "rabbit" (talk page section above) that could apply to a woman. The perfect example would eliminate any danger of the reader favoring one interpretation over another based on background information.

Nevertheless, I agree with your suggestion to revert to the rabbit. "Cow" or "Sweetheart" are both better, though. Chrisrus (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Chrisrus: "Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg address on the back of an envelope while traveling to the battlefield." Easy, no? As for "Betty, a maid and a rabbit", it's easy to add something descriptive: "his sister Betty, their housemaid, and their daughter's pet rabbit". I don't know of anyone who has employed a sister as a housemaid (or a friend) apart from Adolf H.--andreasegde (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems like you've really missed the point. Chrisrus (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you just like tying yourself in knots. Chicken or the egg, anyone?--andreasegde (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone please weigh in
A) "...John, a plumber, and a carpenter..."

B) "...John, a plumber and a carpenter..."

1. Three people (serial comma)

2. Two people (apositive: John, who is a plumber, and also another person, who is a carpenter

3. One person (compound apositive) ''John, who is both a plumber and also a carpenter at the same time."

Q: Which numbers correspond to which letters? Chrisrus (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A = 1 or 2, B = 1 or 3. Should the text of the article (around "x, y, z" at the end of the bit on unresolved ambiguity) be amended to include something like this? Maybe. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 06:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This is tying yourself in knots for the fun of it. Read the section above. Clarity is everything.--andreasegde (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Details about other languages?
From the lead, I gather that this article wants to cover other languages besides English, but after the vague statements in the lead (with no page numbers in citations by the way), nothing is ever said about other languages in the body. See the 3rd paragraph in the lead of WP:LEAD. Pcap ping  02:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

American/British difference
The lead currently says "There are differences in usage and prescription between American English and British English, but no particular trend has been identified." Beg pardon? Surely there is a clear tendency for American sources to insist on the serial comma, and for British style to avoid it. Both the references given in the sentence even say as much! I propose changing this sentence back to something more like what it was a few months ago: "Most American English authorities recommend its use, but it is less frequent in British English" – or (better?) "It is routinely used in American English, but more likely to be avoided in British English." Any problems with this? <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 07:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead: the current sentence is certainly wrong. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 10:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)