“Oxford Comma” Gag in Header Becomes Slightly More Relevant
In the flash animation strip in my header, you can see mention (in animated red pen) of the “OXFORD COMMA”, the last comma in any series of items in a sentence. Over time, use of this final comma has lost favor in the publishing world, starting with newsprinters (notorious for sparing characters to save space) and spreading to other journalistic publications.
But the trend isn’t over. In fact, the Oxford comma just lost some more ground–on its home turf.
A University of Oxford Writing and Style Guide has decided that writers should, “as a general rule,” avoid using the Oxford comma. Will you miss the good old fashioned serial comma?
I might–if only as a ghost habit. It’s one of those things that were drilled into us; when I read lists I have an aching need to add that last soft-pause between the final two items. When I don’t see the comma there, the separation value bears some inequality in my grammatical lens. I have, however, learned to deal with my delusion thanks to keeping the company of minimalist editors (newsprint and mag, especially) who’ve been keen on dropping the Oxford for decades.
But it’s not altogether dead:
Here’s an explanation from the style guide: “…[w]rite ‘a, b and c’ not ‘a, b, and c’. But when a comma would assist in the meaning of the sentence or helps to resolve ambiguity, it can be used – especially where one of the items in the list is already joined by ‘and’ [for example]: They had a choice between croissants, bacon and eggs, and muesli.”
You may hear a few stuffy old-school manuscript editors hem, haw, and howl hem, haw and howl over this one. The stuffiest of those will probably continue adding their Oxfords in rebellion.
Check out the full article here on MediaBistro.com’s Galleycat
