a victory for the Oxford comma (and for grammar nerds)

Grammar nerds are delighted at the news story this week that the Oxford comma decided a court case. Being a grammar nerd who loves the Oxford comma, I got caught up in the excitement.

The Oxford comma, or serial comma, is the final comma right before the conjunction in a series of words. Some style guides favor it, others say to omit it. The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage says not to use it. The Chicago Manual of Style tells us we should use it.

Here is an example: "I had eggs, toast, and orange juice." If you omit the final comma (I had eggs, toast and orange juice) the sentence could be read as telling the toast and orange juice that you had eggs for breakfast.

In fact, eliminating ambiguity is one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Oxford comma. Take this example: "This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God." While this was probably never really a dedication in a published book, I love it nonetheless. The implication that the author believes that his parents are Ayn Rand and God really strikes my funny bone.

And the court case? The court case was all about ambiguity. In Maine a group of dairy delivery drivers believed they were entitled to overtime pay. Their employer said they weren't. The relevant statute states that workers involved in the following activities are not eligible for overtime:

The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of:
(1) Agricultural produce;
(2) Meat and fish products; and
(3) Perishable foods. 

Note the missing comma before the "or." Because that comma was not there, the court read "packing for shipment or distribution" as a single activity, when in fact "packing for shipment" and "distribution" were probably meant to be understood as separate activities. Nonetheless, the judge sided with the (missing) Oxford comma and ruled that the delivery drivers were eligible for overtime.

Here's to the Oxford comma!

 

different styles for different situations

I just finished my second time through the Great Courses lecture series Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths of Language Usage by John McWhorter. It's an enjoyable and fascinating set of lectures about how language is used. Given that McWhorter is a linguist, he is as interested in how language is actually used as he is in how it "should be" used. (Yes, I do seem to have a fondness for linguists.)

In his lecture on texting he suggests that the practice is not as harmful to the language as some people might want to think. He points out that the same questions arose when the use of email first became common. He also suggests that the abbreviations used in texting do not carry over into everyday speech and formal writing. He uses the examples OMG, LOL, BFF, and WTF.

It seems to me, however, that sometimes people do say "o-m-g." It's a nice alternative, perhaps, in polite company to using the the complete phrase it replaces. Someone might also say "b-f-f" I suppose. But people certainly don't go around saying "lol" in everyday speech. In fact "w-t-f" might be a useful euphemism to introduce into casual conversation, but I've never heard anyone say it.

In any case, I think that McWhorter is correct: texting has not had an adverse effect on other forms of communication. He sees four boxes, as he calls them:

• Being a good conversationalist
• Having great formal writing skills
• Making a compelling and effective speech
• Crafting oneself as a "maximally clever e-mailer and as an aggressively clever texter."

McWhorter tells us, "Cultivate your four boxes."

That makes sense to me.