, I think I’ll start using a comma BEFORE my sentences.
, Perhaps it will help to stop and think for a second, before revealing my ignorance.
, Oops…too late :smack:
Yes, “using the word ‘and’ without a comma for the last item in a list, is a viable and correct way of writing.” But saying that “perhaps the serial comma is an acceptable way of writing” is a bit of an understatement. Most books on grammar acknowledge that using or not using a serial comma is a matter of style, and that neither style is incorrect. But most grammar books published in the last half-century also recommend using the serial comma. To say that most professional grammarians’ views are merely “acceptable,” while your elementary-school teacher’s views are “in fact, correct,” is indeed “too extreme.”
Cite?
I suspect the explanation above of being either urban legend or at best a partial, but not total, explanation of the practice.
The argument that this practice “doesn’t make sense” or is “illogical” presumably arises from an extremely literal reading; i.e., the thing is a nubbit, not a nubbit-period. I suspect that people only became this literal after computer programming became a fairly common practice. I will even go out on a limb and guess that **outburst **has done some coding in his/her past.
I know a lot of people who just don’t *like *putting punctuation within quotes, and there are obviously a lot more who simply don’t know that they are supposed to. Then there are the computer people who don’t do it because it screws up their code.
But we don’t have to be so friggin’ literal. Writing prose is not computer programming.
I’ve always thought that punctuation within quotation marks makes sense because, regardless of the mechanical requirements of any particular typesetting system, it makes the punctuation mark more obvious to the (human) eye. In other words, it works better.
Note also that the rule generally applies only to periods and commas, which are more easily overlooked, and not to question marks and exclamation points.
Granted, this is a practical, not a logical, argument for the practice, but that doesn’t mean it’s illogical.
Ambiguous phrases are probably more common without the comma, but I can think of situations where the presence of the comma causes ambiguity. For instance, take “I would like to thank Madonna, the greatest musician in the world, and God”. Is she claiming that Madonna is the greatest musician is the world, or is she perhaps thanking both Madonna and Robert Smith?
I think that many ambiguities would be resolved if people got in the habit of using Polish Notation Helper Words. Then one could either say “I’d like to thank all of: my parents, God and Madonna”, or, if one wanted to, “I’d like to thank my parents, both God and Madonna”.
And instead of saying such ambiguous statements such as “you may have your choice of salad and mashed potatoes or fires”, menus could either say “you may have your choice of both salad and either mashed potatoes or fries”, or “you may have either both salad and mashed potatoes or fires”.
You’re suggested rewordings are extremely awkward, and I can’t figure out what you’re trying to say. Are you saying “comes with salad and choice of mashed potatoes or fries” or “comes with choice of salad, mashed potatoes, or fries”?
If a comma before the word “and” is redundant, why are we required to put one between two independent clauses joined by “and”?
I agree with all the sensible posters above. Commas in a series are good. I would like to follow the British style for “Dr” and “Mr”. Periods in the middle of a sentence are jarring and should be avoided if not necessary. And I want to put my punctuation outside of my quotation marks.
Normally I think it’s unnecessary to apologize for typos, but I’m very embarrassed about writing “you’re” instead of “your”. Carry on.
The Ryan has a point with his example “I would like to thank Madonna, the greatest musician in the world, and God”. Now, is this just a matter of an enumeration with a serial comma or an aposition, further characterizing Madonna?
It’s a tricky question and a good example why it’s good to avoid the serial comma with list items.
I disagree. In the quote in the OP, the speaker did not intend to link God and Madonna, but the editor, putting the spoken words on paper and simply following his publication’s usual (non-serial comma) style, created that connection.
If the editor recognizes the problem,* he would have had to violate the style to correct it, because the serial comma is virtually the only way to preserve the quote intact. (Editors hate to violate their style, and many will die before doing so.)
But in The Ryan’s example, if the editor knows that “the greatest musician in the world” refers to Madonna, he simply sets off the subordinate clause in some fashion: “I would like to thank Madonna–the greatest musician in the world–and God.” [Note period inside the quotes!] Parens would also serve.
If the editor knows that the speaker was referring to some other musician, he can name that person in brackets: “I would like to thank Madonna, the greatest musician in the world [a reference to Robert Smith], and God.”
In neither case does the blind application of a style create a link not intended by the speaker. Nor does the simplest fix violate anyone’s style.
If the editor doesn’t know what the speaker intended, it’s probably best not to use the quote. As my journalism mentor (Dad) has explained: don’t report on things you don’t understand.
- I maintain that this is unlikely, since failure to use the serial comma has been clinically shown to lead to a dulling of the mental faculties, forgetfulness, and, in a few cases, insanity.
In your second interpretation, to what does “and” refer to? There’s only one interpretation that makes sense.
comasense
If you’re going to allow the editor to add words, there are plenty of ways to make the example from the OP to be clear: “I’d like to thank my [the following:]parents, God and Madonna” or , “I’d like to thank [not only] my parents, [but also]God and Madonna”.
In the second interpretation, the word “and” wasn’t needed.
Exactly. That is how one knows that that interpretation is not correct.