Inspired by this thread on whether to use one or two spaces after a period.
I grew up learning to put two spaces after a period. It would take me at least 20 minutes to figure out how to to force vBulletin to do two spaces in a row, and I wouldn’t bother because I’m not used to it anymore.
I also think this looks weird:
I typed, I edited and I proofread. Not that I think it’s just ugly. Following the same logic:
I came, I saw I conquered.
I believe, I insist on, and I crave the terminal comma. But my boss tells me that comma before the last item in a series is still an “optional comma.” I can understand how this would be reasonable in print, when you want to save ink. But if it’s optional, do we still not need to be consistent and include or exclude it consistently, regardless of conveniently fitting a number of characters before a line break? And if we’re looking to save bits, the terminal comma is the coup de grace after we’ve minimized our reliance on other large media files.
So, what is the most recent verdict on this?
The proper term is serial comma. It’s a must.
Like every other “rule” and matter of usage, it’s a question of the prevailing style of the publication or context in which the writing will appear. If you’re writing for your own book, publication, Web site, or what have you, feel free to use the serial comma, and whatever other styles you happen to like.
But it seems to be out of favor with most major print publications. AP style says no serial comma, and I believe most major newspapers follow AP style in that and most other particulars. (Just imagine the thousands of trees and gallons of ink that have been saved by not putting in all those millions of commas!)
OTOH, the Chicago Manual of Style says to use the serial comma.
Me personally, I use the serial comma in my publication (I got to set my own stylebook), and in all my writing. I think that the potential for confusion is far greater without it than with it. The classic example in which its absence is a problem takes the form, “I’d like to thank my parents, God and Madonna.” AFAIK, there is no similar problem that can arise from its use.
However, ultimately it’s a matter of opinion. There’s no objective “scientific” proof that one style is better than the other. Whatever rule is in place for the place in which your writing will appear will decide whether it’s used or not.
If, as seems to be the case, your workplace has no established style, you should use the serial comma in all your writing, and do your best to point out its advantage to others so as to establish it as a de facto style. (Of course, if you’re going to piss off your boss, you’ll have to decide if a comma is worth your job! :D)
As has been said, this is a matter of style, rather than a formal rule. You can pick whichever you want as long as you remain consistent.
Newspapers tend to favor rules that minimize the number of characters used. AP style, for example, does not use the serial comma.
In books and other publications, space is at less of a premium. University of Chicago style, probably the most popular one for books, uses the serial comma.
I generally use Chicago style myself, and prefer the serial comma anyway because I agree it tends to minimize possible confusion.
Though I’m a fan myself of the Oxford comma, I think the first sentence you presented has slightly different connotations with or without it. I typed, I edited, and I proofread seems pretty unmarked to me, whereas I typed, I edited and I proofread reads to me like a more eccentric version of I typed-- I edited and I proofread.
I like the Oxford comma. Without it, it changes the meaning, IMHO - it makes the last two activities seem like smaller subsets of one larger activity which is equal in importance to the others.
“I put on my shirt, my trousers, my socks and and my shoes” might be ok as those two go together as one activity. “I put on my shirt, my trousers and my hat” sounds to me like you were trying to do the last two at the same time. Or something.
But each to their own.
As noted, it’s not a rule, it’s a matter of style. There have been numerous discussions here on this, and here is a
**summary **
of past discussions plus what other sources have to say.
It needs something in there, because the above reads (to me) as ‘I came, I saw that I had conquered’
Most of my clients specify whether or not they want the serial comma or not – irrespective of which style manual they use as their editorial basis.
My favorite why-you-should-use-it example:
compare:
I’d like to dine with my parents, Ayn Rand and God.
I’d like to dine with my parents, Ayn Rand, and God.
Is there an original attribution for that?
I give almost the same example in the summary I linked to two posts above. The one I have always seen is an apocryphal book dedicatation. I have searched extensively without being able to find a source.
The serial comma rule doesn’t play into this, as far as I’ve always understood. Whether you follow the serial comma rule or not, you would have “I came, I saw, I conquered.” The objection to the final comma is with the conjunction “and.” Some argue that combining the comma and “and” is redundant, that the “and” itself implies a comma. At least this was the explanation always given to me, and it’s the only way I could see how omitting the final comma would make sense.
I was raised on AP style, which omits that final comma, but I’ve long since come to conclude that the serial comma is desirable. I can think of many examples (some cited above) where the serial comma will prevent ambiguity and increase clarity, but I cannot think of any examples where the serial comma would cause reader confusion.
So if it’s public domain-ish, I can feel free to change it about and stop referring to Ayn Rand? Good.
-
Consult the style guide preferred by the publication you are writing for, the teacher/professor who will be reviewing your work, etc.
-
If you are not writing “to” a given style guide, the serial comma is optional unless:
–a. “and” is omitted, in which case it is mandatory. (cf. Caesar’s remarks quoted above).
–b. Omission of the serial comma would lead to ambiguity or lack of clarity. (My parents, Ayn Rand and God all say so.)
–c. You are being inconsistent. Choose one and stick to it. If you need to use it once to avoid ambiguity, use it consistently.
That said, the modern trend outside the realm of journalism is to use it. But that’s by no means a consensus, and journalism makes a very large exception to that standard.
As evidence for my post, I cite my college professors, commasense and Colibri. 
“I typed, I edited[,] and I proofread.”
This particular sentence used as example in the OP illustrates one minor instance of a relatively rare form of ambiguity that would call for a mandatory serial comma.
Notice that “proofread” has identical written present and past tense forms, as.do a handful of other English verbs. With the comma, you are clearly establishing three parallel past document production activities you have done. Monday I typed, Tuesday I edited, and Wednesday I proofread. Without it, the parallelism is no so clear, and out of context the sentence might mean, “Once I was a typist, then an editor, and now I’m a proofreader,” with the last verb present tense. It’s a stretch, but a possible misunderstanding, depending on whether you hear in your head “proof-red” or “proof-reed” (using the homonyms for clarity). To avoid giving the occasional reader that “Huh?” moment, the careful writer opts for the serial comma.
I stopped using the serial comma for several years because I was writing mostly for publications that used journalistic styles. For consistency and ease of thinking (or not thinking) I stopped using it for all writing.
But I’ve gone back to it. There are too many sentences that offer the possibility of confusion when the serial comma is omitted. Using one eliminates the confusion (except in rare cases in which semicolons might be a better alternative.) I can’t think of any negatives to their use. Having one extra space or two in a complete article is meaningless. The odds than an individual sentence with a serial comma would cause space issues are minuscule.
So my advice is to use it unless a style guide instructs you not to for a particular audience. It just works better.
I’m glad this was a punctuation thread. I read the title and immediately thought, “Typo.” Then I thought about a person being bludgeoned to death by an irate proofreader wielding a copy of Grammatically Correct.
I was going to vote “nay,” but only because I read the thread title as "Terminal coma? Yay or nay?
As a matter of strict grammar, I think the “veni, vidi, vici” quotation does not implicate the serial comma, because it really ought to use semicolons instead.
“I came; I saw; I conquered.”
