| Revision as of 13:18, 20 December 2004 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →POV← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:41, 30 November 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,372,463 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Serial comma/Archive_4. (BOT)Tag: Manual revert |
| (647 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
==Miscellaneous== |
|
|
|
{{British English Oxford spelling}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
Is this comma used in a list consisting of only two entities? |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject University of Oxford|importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Linguistics|importance=Low}} |
|
:No. ] 19:05, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
I'm not sure I see the ambiguity that serial commas introduce into the example of the bottom paragraph. It would appear that Miss Roberts was considered for three roles, and I don't readily see an alternative interpretation. Maybe I'm just being oblivious? Is there a better example to use? ] 02:19, May 25, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|archiveprefix=Talk:Serial comma/Archive_ |
|
|
|
|
|
|format=%%i |
|
: I think the ambiguity is in using the commas to parenthetize "David's mother", implying Marjorie was David's mother. In any case, one shouldn't probably use commas to do that... ] 02:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|age=720 |
|
|
|
|
|
|numberstart=3 |
|
:: The ambiguity is ''not'' removed if one omits the serial comma, ''unless'' serial commas are ''forbidden''. As long as they are optional, the ambiguity in this counterexample remains. — ] 02:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|maxarchsize=100000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|archivebox=no |
|
:I think this is very well-written and clear encyclopedia article. Props to those who did the work. ] 01:10, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|box-advert=no |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
== Inadequate anti-serial-comma arguments == |
|
|
|
|
|
I know folks are trying to create good examples, and I don't have a better one offhand, but |
|
|
|
|
|
:''We brought Betty, a cow, and a piano.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
is ''not'' an example of ambiguity in serial comma use. It's simply bad grammar to put a comma after "Betty" in this sentence. There are not three parallel items that require some use of commas — there are only two. "Betty" is not one of the items being brought. There should be ''no'' commas in this sentence, regardless of serial comma practice. I'm sure there are good examples of serial comma ambiguity, but this isn't one. — ] 13:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Excuse me. I just re-read the sentence, and realized that I was thinking of an interpretation that the author apparently did not consider. I think it's because the sentence seems rather artificial. When I saw the words: |
|
|
|
|
|
::''we brought Betty a cow and a piano'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:I was first inclined to read this as bringing a cow and a piano ''to'' Betty, not ''with'' Betty, and simply assumed the comma after "Betty" was a typographical error, the like of which I see dozen of times every single day, even from supposedly-respectable news organizations. But the author of this example apparently meant it to be read ambiguously as one of the two following: |
|
|
|
|
|
:*''we brought Betty, who is a cow, and a piano'' |
|
|
:*''we brought Betty and a cow and a piano'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::<font color="blue">Yes--since we were discussing the ''last'' comma in a series. But I can understand the confusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
:that would be resolved if the original sentence omitted the last comma, which would be a serial comma in the last interpretation. Technically, the author's point is correct, but gets lost in the confusion over an unintended (and I think more likely expected) meaning. I think we still need a better example. — ] 14:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::<font color="blue">Confusion should be precluded with: |
|
|
:::<font color="blue">They went to Oregon with Betty, a cow, and a piano. |
|
|
::<font color="blue">Thanks for the feedback.--] 17:53, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)<font color="blue"> |
|
|
|
|
|
::How would people feel about this example? "I saw Ann, my sister, and Joe." ] 16:49, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:::<font color="blue">I like the humor in mistaking a lady for a cow--like Rand and God for one's parents. I think I've solved the problem. --] 17:53, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think Factitious's example seems more ambiguous (in that one is more likely to see a sister who may or may not be named Ann than to go to Oregon with a cow that may or may not be named Betty), and is thus more likely to benefit from serial comma absence. But I have to admit, I also like NathanHawking's example's humor and symmetry with the classic Rand-and-God example. However, my earlier error also made me more conscious of how likely one is to mistake the presence or absence of punctuation as an error by sloppy writers and not as an intentional policy. In the past week, I've corrected at least two Misplaced Pages article instances of parenthetical-phrase comma use where the second comma was omitted (which is ''never'' correct), making it ''look'' like an absent serial comma for a list. I'm afraid that, if I saw either example in use without a serial comma, I would not feel that I knew the intended meaning without context. I don't see a direct solution to this; it's just an observation. — ] 04:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::<font color="blue">Google "cow named Betty". 18 hits for web. "Cow betty" gives 143 hits. Lots of cows named Betty. Dogs named Fred, too.--] 10:00, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Google "sister named Ann" — 277 hits. "Sister ann" gives about 24,700. Far more sisters named Ann. But I still like your example. ☺ By the way, please don't break up my comments, even with blue highlighting. Besides thwarting the admittedly limited Wiki markup, interspersed comments work well in dialogs, but not when three or more parties are involved, especially on a discussion page that new people may be trying to follow months or even years from now. — ] 14:56, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removal of added section == |
|
|
I removed the following: |
|
|
:But the ambiguity of whether "a cow" was a parenthetic expression or a separate member of a list would also arise in speech, unless the speaker used careful intonation. Special punctuation can be used to mimic the necessary careful intonations. For one meaning: |
|
|
::They went to Oregon with Betty; a cow; and a piano. |
|
|
:For the other, one of: |
|
|
::They went to Oregon with Betty (a cow) and a piano. |
|
|
::They went to Oregon with Betty – a cow – and a piano. |
|
|
:Consider: "They went to Oregon with Betty, a housekeeper, and a maidservant." |
|
|
|
|
|
Reasons as follows: |
|
|
#Commas aren't used in speech, and this article is about commas. Disambiguation by intonation is interesting, but doesn't belong in an article about punctuation. |
|
|
#The recommended use of semicolons, so far as I can tell, is non-standard. |
|
|
#The example sentence at the end essentially repeats the Betty-cow-piano example. |
|
|
--] 20:55, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I rethought the contributors point about the last sentence and the disambiguation examples, and extracted that to create a final section, showing alternatives to serial commas. --] 21:26, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Inaccurate == |
|
|
|
|
|
All of the commas in a series, not just the optional one before the conjunction, are serial commas. The one just before the conjunction is an Oxford comma. ] 15:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Perhaps this is one of those cases where usage has triumphed over logic in language. The vast majority of references use "the serial comma" to refer only to the last comma: |
|
|
::"This last comma—the one between the word "and" and the preceding word—is often called the serial comma or the Oxford comma." (deleted reference as it's causing a problem for the spam filter) |
|
|
::"When you are writing about a series of things, the serial comma is necessary before the final 'and.'" |
|
|
::"I stoutly defend the use of the serial comma..." |
|
|
::"Without the serial comma, the example could have numerous meanings." (reference causing problem for spam filter: deleted) |
|
|
::"Serial Comma (also known as the Oxford or Harvard Comma): Even without the final (serial) comma, the sentence is grammatically correct." (spam filter: reference deleted) |
|
|
:In a half-dozen articles I found one exception: |
|
|
::"Except for journalists, all American authorities say to use the final serial comma:" (spam filter: reference deleted) |
|
|
:I don't know if that's enough to justify rewriting the introduction. If you can cite a few more references which chew this bone, though, perhaps clarification would be in order. --] 23:18, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Page move== |
|
|
|
|
|
::Shorne's right. Oxford comma is the proper name for the last comma in the list - not serial comma. We should move the article to "Oxford comma". ] 21:29, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I don't care what the page is called, assuming proper redirects, but please don't be prescriptive about what is the "proper" name. Misplaced Pages should merely accurately describe the existing usage(s). ] 22:33, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I see someone has ] and moved this page to '''Oxford comma''' despite no consensus on the preference of "Oxford comma" over "serial comma". I see also that the first paragraph was rephrased to fit the new title. However, the entire remainder of the article uses "serial comma" to mean the Oxford comma. I agree that "serial comma" is ambiguous, as it is occasionally (and more logically) used in sense of "one in a series of commas in a list", but this does not justify ''ignoring'' its normal and accepted use in the other sense. At the very ''least'', the text should reflect the dual use of the term and be consistent in how it discusses the article subject. We can't ignore the preponderance of the "last comma" use in a variety of style guides, just because the English language doesn't conform to ] logic. Frankly, I'd prefer to move this article back to '''Serial comma'''. If the bold editor(s) would prefer this not be done, I urge them to fix the current mess. — ] 08:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
No evidence at all has been provided to support the claim that the term ''Oxford comma'' is somehow more ''proper'', nothing to counter the evidence provided by ]. To add to this evidence: ''The Cambridge Guide to English Usage'' has a redirect to "'''comma section 3''' for ''serial comma'' but no redirect for the term Oxford comma. The article '''comma''' calls it "(the so called ''serial comma'' or ''series comma'') and from that point onward calls it the ''serial comma''. The term Oxford comma does not appear in the article at all. (Does Cambridge hate Oxford that badly?) However in both the Burchfield and the Allen Fowler, in the article '''comma''', this comma is identified as "the so-called 'Oxford comma')" once and not other special name is there given, neither ''serial comma'' or ''series comma''. But the quotation marks placed around ''Oxford comma'' here suggests an attempt to disavow that is an official or ''proper'' name for this comma usage. In the Buchfield Fowler the term appears twice, both times within single quotation marks. This is the ''only'' place where I have found ''Oxford comma'' given primary usage. For many technical terms there is no single ''proper'' name, only competing descriptive names. In such cases, the more common one is preferred in Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
If an older usage can be documented, then the information should be added to the article and a note added to the lead paragraph indicating the contemporary usage derives from older usage in which the term applied to any comma in a list. I have found cases of the phrase ''final serial comma'', but this might mean either the last of a number of serial commas or the last comma which is the special serial comma. ] 20:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Being bold is what Misplaced Pages's about. I wish more people were bolder:) I haven't had time to research this thoroughly, but "Oxford comma" is by far the more interesting way to refer to it. I must say, however, that looking at an internet search of it, I was surprised at the pure venom expressed by those supporting its use against those who do not adopt it. As Burchfield, quite correctly, reports, both using the Oxford comma and not using the Oxford comma are accepted usage now (although Burchfield does note his personal preference of using the Oxford comma). ] 23:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::PS I wouldn't mind Oxford, they give degrees to anyone these days :) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Being bold is good, but it does not release one either from being accurate or from the consequences of one's boldness. And there are now three separate issues being discussed in this section titled '''Inaccurate''': |
|
|
:::# The article title change to '''Oxford comma''', based on logic but not on typical practice. |
|
|
:::# The failure to update more than the introductory paragraph of the article to accomodate the change. |
|
|
:::# The actual use or avoidance of the "Oxford comma". |
|
|
:::The second has been resolved. The third is irrelevant to this discussion. Let's please focus on the specific "Oxford comma" vs. "serial comma" issue here. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::As far as ''that'' goes, whether "Oxford comma" is a more "interesting" label is hardly relevant. The important thing is to label it accurately. From that point of view, both "Oxford" and "Harvard" are more logical, but the evidence cited thus far strongly suggests these latter terms are not the most common practice. However, most of that evidence appears to be coming from folks who prefer "serial comma", which makes sense but could be considered selective research. Can someone quote any unequivocating authoritative source for favoring either "Oxford comma" or "Harvard comma"? If not, this article should be returned to its former title. — ] 02:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Burchfield prefers the term in ''Fowler''. Also, this google test shows just under a 2:1 preference for "Oxford comma". ] 07:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Searching outside of ''just'' UK sites (where one would expect a higher bias toward the Oxford phrasing) shows a preference for serial comma, however (5,810:5,500). The Concise OED redirects the reader to serial comma from Oxford comma, as well. --] 08:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Looks like your search showed no clear usage preference (even though one would expect an American bias as there are disproportionately more American websites). ] 08:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Burchfield's a bit attainted by his use of the phrase "so-called 'Oxford comma'", according to ]. On the other hand, websites can be useful for rough ideas, but are hardly authoritative, even when the evidence strongly supports one side. (And I share ]'s suspicion about American bias in overall website content.) Surely there are other British style guides that can shed more light on this debate, on way or another? I'd dig 'em up myself, but my local libraries (not surprisingly, in Virginia) have little in the way of British materials. — ] 14:56, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::In making my preceding comment, I overlooked ]'s explicit search of ''UK'' sites. Unless ] wishes to make the argument that most UK websites are run by expatriate Americans, even a slight favoring of "serial comma" over the homegrown "Oxford comma" significantly undermines the argument for the latter. But I maintain that printed British style guides' recommendations would be more meaningful. — ] 07:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::: No, no. I searched Google at large, which showed the 5% preference for "serial" over "Oxford." Maurreen's search is even more revealing, though. And, as I mentioned above, the OED uses "serial comma" as its main entry, not "Oxford comma," which I think says something. |
|
|
|
|
|
To get a truly scientific answer about what is most common would probably take more effort than the question is worth. But here's more Google searches: |
|
|
#Using all three words ("comma", "oxford", and "serial") gives 5,290 hits. |
|
|
#Using "comma", "oxford", and "-serial" gives 116,000 hits. |
|
|
#Using "comma", "serial", and "-oxford" gives 202,000 hits. |
|
|
|
|
|
Further, the expression "serial comma" can be more easily understood by anyone unfamiliar with the expression "Oxford comma" than the reverse. ] 08:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==POV== |
|
|
|
|
|
Changing the article from "Serial comma" to "Oxford comma" is POV. I'm adding the tag. ] 06:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But what a wonderful article name is "Oxford comma", and to have it tagged makes it all the more intriguing! ] 16:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Ho-hum. I find the term "serial comma" to be highly mis-leading as a term for the description of what this article about; "ante-posterior comma" would be significantly better. Naming it "serial comma" is, indeed, IMO, somewhat POV in and of itself. |
|
|
: ] ] 16:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Since the comma is actually termed "Oxford comma", and the common alternative names are also mentioned in the article, are there any objections to removing the POV notice? ] 20:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
No objections. All of the names appear pretty well known. We just have to pick one. Oxford is as good as any other. ] 20:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I object. Let's wait and see if anyone else does also. I also disagree that all the terms are well known. ] 21:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:And what is the justification for renaming the article? ] 21:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I also object. Jguk's assertion implies that "Oxford comma" is the ''official'' name, and the others mere alternatives. Despite repeated requests for proof of such a claim, he has failed to provide compelling evidence. Others have provided substantive evidence that "serial comma", under which this article was originally titled, is the better-known name. So far, there is more reason to change it back than either to keep it or to remove the POV tag. — ] 08:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Jeff Q, I never said it was an ''official'' - as with most names of things, there's nothing official about it:) I did say it was ''actually'' called the Oxford comma, which it is. It is also ''actually'' called Harvard comma and serial comma by some, as the article notes. I'm not sure what this has got to do with a POV tag though. We don't usually put POV tags on something because they are named using the most common British term, rather than the most common American one. Kind regards, ] 09:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Jguk, of course you didn't use the word "official". You merely implied a preference for "Oxford" by using the word "actually" for it and using the term "alternative" for the other names. This is your subtle and rather effective way to press an argument that you have lost repeatedly and yet refuse to give up. Another element of your argument strategy is to make it sound like your oppponents are pressing an American usage over British, as you have once again just done. It is ''not'' a British vs. American issue; it is a question of how the term is best known by a majority of English references of all dialects. No one has yet provided a substantive case that most (or even very many) references, British ''or'' American (or Canadian, for that matter), prefer the term "Oxford comma" over "serial comma". So far, we've had one respectable citation which itself qualified the term as "so-called 'Oxford comma'", and one very obscure citation. This was countered by numerous citations for "serial comma". (Unfortunately, much of this research has been posted in other discussion pages. However, I'm willing to collect it and summarize it here, if only someone would do a better job on the "Oxford" side of the issue. I'd do it myself, but I haven't found any evidence yet, and I'm probably at a disadvantage because my sources ''are'' more American than British.) I'm not saying the jury's in; I'm just saying that the "Oxford comma" proponents have failed thus far to make their case by citations, and are relying on a vocal minority opinion and an abundance of energy to sustain this unproven assertion. If you can prove your point, I'll happily support you. — ] 21:40, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The POV tag says only that the neutrality is disputed. If any person disputes it, then it is disputed. If any person wants the tag to stay, it should stay. |
|
|
:Articles are supposed to be named using the most common name overall. The evidence given at least so far indicates that "serial comma" is the most common name. |
|
|
:We don't usually change the names of articles to make them "more interesting", either. ] 14:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::See ]. ] 15:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I read it. What is your point? ] 15:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The point there was that you were misunderstanding Misplaced Pages policy (which isn't as simple as articles being titled using the most commonly-used term). But going back to my original question on whether the NPOV tag can be removed (which seems to have rekindled this dormant debate), the NPOV tag reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see its talk page." As I understand it, that notice is untrue. It is where the article should be located that is disputed. That's got nothing to do with the neutrality of the article itself. Kind regards, ] 21:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I will clarify: I dispute that the article is neutral. To clarify further: It represents your point of view of what is "proper" and "more interesting". ] 05:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I found this page after looking up serial comma. In case it helps, a Google search returns 6,580 for "serial comma," 876 for "Oxford comma," and 429 for "Harvard comma". That's fairly conclusive. If the person who created this article had originally called it Oxford comma, there would be an argument for leaving it as that, but it was started as Serial comma, so there has to be an argument in favor of changing it. Reading through this page, I see no argument, just assertion. In addition, most people who know the term "Oxford comma" will know that it's usually called "serial comma," but users of "serial comma" may never have heard of "Oxford comma." I agree that the page should be changed back to its original title. ] 13:18, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC) |
|
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
