Interestingly enough, using the serial comma in the singular case introduces confusion rather than eliminating it.
“We invited the stripper, JFK and Stalin,” is clearly referring to 3 people. But, “We invited the stripper, JFK, and Stalin,” could be referring to those same 3 people or to 2 people, one of whom is a stripper named JFK. This is why one should not rely on graphics for grammar advice.
I don’t think very many of the English majors on this board would quote Strunk & White.
In my experience, English majors are all too happy to quote Strunk and White.
Ah, yes. There are certainly counterexamples to the serial comma. While we’re at it, there are also cases where either approach is ambiguous:
We invited Stalin, a stripper, and a dictator. (Are there two people here or three?)
So let’s get rid of the serial comma:
We invited Stalin, a stripper and a dictator. (Now is there one person or three?)
Who gives a fuck?
I believe Scarlett67 is a professional proofreader. You might want to contact her via PM if you want to get her attention.
And one more cite from the Chicago Manual of Style:
I don’t have the actual Chicago Manual of Style, so I can’t quote the rule, but this jibes with my memory, and is consistent with the Associated Press Stylebook rule quoted above. (Cough with a couple of typos on my part, naturally.)
Is there a style guide that would not recommend a comma there?
Minor hijack: I’m intrigued, why not?
I had a reading/writing course in college taught by a history/religion teacher, and the first thing he did was make us read Elements of Style. He liked short, concise papers.
Strunk & White has a lot of critics. A lot. This article will give you a rundown of why Strunk & White is regarded as a piss-poor guide to writing by many people.
I think the article “50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice” sums it up very well.
Much obliged to both of you!
I’m not trying to argue for one side or the other; I’m simply trying to point out that punctuation marks don’t always end ambiguity and in most cases, there’s a lot more context to make it obvious.
We invited Stalin, a stripper and a dictator. But by the time the stripper arrived, Stalin had drunk all the beer and the dictator was busy in the kitchen violating my potatoes. (Now it’s extremely clear how many people there are and since most of the time, people write and talk in more than simple sentences, trying to make the comma carry the weight of all the clarity always seems a waste of time to me.)
I know. I’m not making a counterargument, just showing the curiosities of the English language.
I am a communications professional who frequently writes and edits, and I would not use a comma in the OP’s sentence.
A number of people have mentioned the rules involving two independent clauses, but I do not consider these two clauses to be independent. “Add in the fact that he is an actual team player wearing a Knicks uniform” does not stand on its own. It needs additional information to make sense. That information is provided by the second part of the sentence, and the two flow together without needing a comma.
I disagree. “Add in the fact that he is an actual team player wearing a Knicks uniform” is a perfectly valid sentence on its own. Sure, it needs more context, but grammatically, it can stand on its lonesome. “Take [this piece of information]. Add in the fact that he is an actual team player wearing a Knicks uniform. It’s like spotting a unicorn playing point guard at Madison Square Garden.” Yes, it reads a bit choppy (I would put an em dash there if I wanted this wording). But you can also but “What do you get?” in between the sentences.
The first half of the sentence stands alone fine. It’s a complete sentence with subject and predicate.
According to Wikipedia, the AP Stylebook.
Then Wikipedia is incorrect. Read my citation above, directly from the AP Stylebook.
Interesting screed. I wouldn’t necessarily try to debate this guy point by point, because each individual point is well argued. But in the aggregate, he seems to be off on a search and destroy mission. Many of his points are hypercritical, trying to find fault around every corner. But I suppose that is a discussion for another thread.
This has come up a couple times on this board. Here’s one thread on it. I’m currently a bit more anti-S&W than I was back then. It was helpful for me as a stepping stone, and I break all of its “rules” with impunity today. But I understand how some would consider it next to worthless. It’s a shame there isn’t some modern version of S&W that would be a better introduction to crafting the written English word.
I would certainly agree he’s being hypercritical, but the way The Elements of Style paints their list of firm, hard rules as inviolate invites such intense point-by-point criticism.