Astro Hacker News - The Oxford Comma

EuanReid |next [-]

There are so many times the Oxford comma prevents ambiguity. I have yet to see a counterexample. Commas separate list entries, don't change it for the last one.

n4r9 |root |parent |next [-]

Wikipedia has an interesting example where it's still ambiguous:

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

It's not clear whether Betty is the maid. But tbh removing the comma doesn't help either.

Personally if I wanted to indicate that Betty was the maid I would put "a maid" between brackets or hyphens.

rawgabbit |root |parent |next [-]

If Betty was the maid and the cook, I would write...

     They went to Oregon with Betty who was a maid and a cook.

If it was three people, I would write...

     They went to Oregon with Betty, the maid, and the cook.

luxuryballs |root |parent |next |previous [-]

“a maid and cook.”

“a maid, and cook.”

dheera |root |parent |next |previous [-]

This sounds like a case where we should just change the syntax. If Betty is the maid it should be written:

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

dullcrisp |root |parent [-]

(They (went (to Oregon) (with (Betty (a maid)) and (a cook)))).

((That (is (the clearest syntax))) and (we (should (switch to it)))).

GoodJokes |root |parent |previous [-]

[dead]

stephencanon |root |parent |next |previous [-]

"I'd like to thank my mother, Ayn Rand, and God" is the usual example.

Yes, you can reorder the list to remove the ambiguity, but sometimes the order of the list matters. The serial comma should be used when necessary to remove ambiguity, and not used when it introduces ambiguity. Rewrite the sentence when necessary. Worth noting that this is the Oxford University Press's own style rule!

alistairSH |root |parent |next [-]

I always heard this one...

We invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin to the party. [three groups invited - strippers, a president, and a premier]

We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin to the party. [the president and premier are strippers]

Very different visual conjured by those two sentences.

comprev |root |parent |next [-]

"John helped his uncle, Jack off a horse"

"John helped his uncle Jack off a horse"

Two very different outcomes...

Avshalom |root |parent |next |previous [-]

I mean first off: no the exact same image is conjured because we are reading this in context of knowing who jfk and stalin are and we know they aren't strippers and all language is contextual.

That said:

We invited the stripper, JFK, and Stalin to the party.

We invited the stripper, JFK and Stalin to the party.

The supposed ambiguity is back. Although again there is no ambiguity to the reader. The juxtaposition of the two versions wouldn't work as a joke if there was any ambiguity

PaulDavisThe1st |root |parent |next |previous [-]

I'd prefer:

We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin, to the party [two strippers, named JFK and Stalin]

if the goal is to minimize ambiguity.

al_borland |root |parent [-]

I can see it being tiresome to read text where the author is continuously interjecting clarification with brackets.

robertoandred |root |parent |previous [-]

If JFK and Stalin were strippers, there’d be a comma after Stalin to denote the parenthetical clause.

Joker_vD |root |parent |previous [-]

Just put the colon there if you need to introduce a list, it's one of its functions. "I'd like to thank: my mother, Ayn Rand and God". The same goes for that "two strippers" example: "We invited the strippers: JFK and Stalin, to the party".

t0mek |root |parent |previous [-]

Only tangentially related (but hey, it's HN) - I'm so happy about the support/requirements for trailing commas in the modern language syntax:

It makes editing such a list so much easier. Also, the commit diffs are cleaner (you don't need to add comma to the last element when appending a new one).

echohack5 |root |parent |next [-]

The oxford comma debate is so annoying because it clearly has nothing but advantages. Removing commas from a delimited list does nothing to resolve ambiguity, whether lexicographically or syntactically.

It's so useful as a delimiter and anti-ambiguity machine, that you don't even need spaces for it to work! See CSV or Japanese.

black_knight |root |parent |next |previous [-]

I like this:

tommy_axle |root |parent [-]

Nah, prepending will lead to a messier diff than the parent example.

Izkata |root |parent |previous [-]

My very first programming language doesn't use commas:

happytoexplain |next |previous [-]

Spoilers: There is no "why not" in the article (aside from "tradition").

smitty1e |next |previous [-]

There is a book "Eats Shoots and Leaves" that gets at the importance of knowing when (and when not) do deploy the punctuation:

https://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuat...?

I also enjoy how meaning of a whole sentence can be inverted by a bit of punctuation:

a. "A woman without her man is nothing."

b. "A woman: without her, man is nothing."

joosters |root |parent [-]

Lionel Hutz

Works on contingency

No money down

Always the best example for missing punctuation!

leemelone |next |previous [-]

It is important to use the Oxford Comma because it is commonly accepted, fits with tradition, and is just correct.

PaulDavisThe1st |root |parent [-]

.. and in your example, unnecessary.

Or maybe I missed the joke.

|next |previous [-]

semiversus |next |previous [-]

You mean "Why, and Why Not"

cosmotic |root |parent [-]

You'd only use the Oxford comma when the list is 3 or more items.

IAmBroom |root |parent [-]

Still funny.

mjuarez |next |previous [-]

obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2995/

exacube |next |previous [-]

obligatory oxford comma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_i1xk07o4g

voxaai |previous [-]