This article had multiple guffaw-out-loud moments for a grammar geek like me 😂😂😂
"But hopefully we can all at least agree that the arsonists who insist on two spaces after a period should be drummed out of society and abandoned on an island to contemplate their crimes for eternity. "
I wholeheartedly concur with this sentence, Jack, in both senses of the word.
I also believe serial killers of the AP variety belong with their ilk as use of the Oxford comma distinguishes the civilized from philistines, newspaper editors, and ambiguity-spreading barbarians. [Okay, I admit “newspaper editors” could work as an appositive here, but either interpretation works for me.]
I agree! I, too, a lifetime believer in the Oxford comma, laughed out loud several times during this read. Jack's articles always have a huge enjoyment factor at play. I look forward to them all week. :)
You seem to me missing the humor in this piece :-) That said, we have style guides like “Chicago Manual of Style” to thank for saving writers and editors countless hours of agonizing over how to punctuate and format publications so we can focus on the substance rather than the superficialities.
Just like having a dictionary to establish common understandings of terms enables us to communicate with greater precision and clarity, so do style guides facilitate understanding. People are welcome to write however incoherently and messily they like, but if they want people to comprehend their words, they would be wise to adopt standard usage and grammar rules.
No, ma'am. We have style guides so professors can require entire freshman classes to buy a new style guide to line the pockets of the professors. Dictionaries will admit that they have no authority to tell you whether jet is a colour or an engine.
And we have Yankee dictionaries to subjugate the people of Southern states.
Haha, clearly you've never worked as an editor :-) As a reader of books, though, you have benefited from the existence of style guides without realizing it as many classics would have been relegated to the dustbin without the legendary honing of editors like Sol Stein.
Okeydoke, it sounds like you are taking this article and my comments with deadly seriousness rather than in the lighthearted spirit in which they were offered—I guess Jack was right about this being a contentious subject, after all :-)
I use... (and admittedly, often overuse) commas, and things such as ... — / : ....., in order to pace the reader. But some people don't particularly like being dictated to by a grammatical terrorist.
Our rector in a sermon about the causes and people we should fight for (e.g. faith, country, the poor) completed his list with "and of course The Oxford Comma"...I'm with him all the way
This article had multiple guffaw-out-loud moments for a grammar geek like me 😂😂😂
"But hopefully we can all at least agree that the arsonists who insist on two spaces after a period should be drummed out of society and abandoned on an island to contemplate their crimes for eternity. "
I wholeheartedly concur with this sentence, Jack, in both senses of the word.
I also believe serial killers of the AP variety belong with their ilk as use of the Oxford comma distinguishes the civilized from philistines, newspaper editors, and ambiguity-spreading barbarians. [Okay, I admit “newspaper editors” could work as an appositive here, but either interpretation works for me.]
I agree! I, too, a lifetime believer in the Oxford comma, laughed out loud several times during this read. Jack's articles always have a huge enjoyment factor at play. I look forward to them all week. :)
You seem to me missing the humor in this piece :-) That said, we have style guides like “Chicago Manual of Style” to thank for saving writers and editors countless hours of agonizing over how to punctuate and format publications so we can focus on the substance rather than the superficialities.
Just like having a dictionary to establish common understandings of terms enables us to communicate with greater precision and clarity, so do style guides facilitate understanding. People are welcome to write however incoherently and messily they like, but if they want people to comprehend their words, they would be wise to adopt standard usage and grammar rules.
No, ma'am. We have style guides so professors can require entire freshman classes to buy a new style guide to line the pockets of the professors. Dictionaries will admit that they have no authority to tell you whether jet is a colour or an engine.
And we have Yankee dictionaries to subjugate the people of Southern states.
Haha, clearly you've never worked as an editor :-) As a reader of books, though, you have benefited from the existence of style guides without realizing it as many classics would have been relegated to the dustbin without the legendary honing of editors like Sol Stein.
I have edited and published books professionally and at a profit since 1994. You have no idea who I am. kthxbye
Okeydoke, it sounds like you are taking this article and my comments with deadly seriousness rather than in the lighthearted spirit in which they were offered—I guess Jack was right about this being a contentious subject, after all :-)
Was just discussing this yesterday and said this:
I use it only when it’s ambiguous as to whether the ‘and’ belongs to the item or the list
(Usually longer lists with unwieldy multi-word items)
As for Ayn Rand, sometimes you’ve just got to reorder your lists
I use... (and admittedly, often overuse) commas, and things such as ... — / : ....., in order to pace the reader. But some people don't particularly like being dictated to by a grammatical terrorist.
Our rector in a sermon about the causes and people we should fight for (e.g. faith, country, the poor) completed his list with "and of course The Oxford Comma"...I'm with him all the way