# Not using the Oxford comma is now illegal!!



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 15, 2017)

The Oxford comma: A Maine court settled the grammar debate over serial commas with a ruling on overtime pay for dairy-truck drivers ? Quartz

Well not illegal but here's s story about how grammar really messed with s court case.


----------



## Malik (Mar 15, 2017)

I'll just leave this here:


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 15, 2017)

Malik said:


> I'll just leave this here:



I knew someone would make this joke...


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Mar 16, 2017)

This makes me happy.


----------



## Futhark (Mar 16, 2017)

I just learnt something about grammar.  Thanks and yay for me.


----------



## La Volpe (Mar 16, 2017)

Ah, finally the Oxford comma gets its day in the sun. I've always used Oxford commas where I can, because it rarely detracts from a sentence; in most cases, it can only make things clearer (as Malik so clearly shows).


----------



## FifthView (Mar 16, 2017)

I've never understood the "better aesthetics" argument for not using the Oxford comma.


----------



## CupofJoe (Mar 16, 2017)

FifthView said:


> I've never understood the "better aesthetics" argument for not using the Oxford comma.


I think it comes from the same people that say apostrophes make words look ugly; full stops [periods] should be optional; Capitalisation is unnecessary...
And is it just me that thinks Stalin as a stripper is just a little more creepy than JFK as a stripper?


----------



## Chessie (Mar 16, 2017)

I use it all the time. So...*shrugs* It really helps clarify things sometimes.


----------



## Malik (Mar 16, 2017)

CupofJoe said:


> is it just me that thinks Stalin as a stripper is just a little more creepy than JFK as a stripper?



I'd make a wisecrack about Poles right here, but it would be in exceptionally bad taste, even for me.


----------



## SumnerH (Mar 16, 2017)

La Volpe said:


> Ah, finally the Oxford comma gets its day in the sun. I've always used Oxford commas where I can, because it rarely detracts from a sentence; in most cases, it can only make things clearer (as Malik so clearly shows).



I use it habitually, but there are times when it can cause more ambiguity than the alternative.  Tweaking the example from above, if you make the "stripper" singular then the problem reverses:

"We invited the stripper, Stalin and JFK."
"We invited the stripper, Stalin, and JFK".

The former is clearly thanking 3 people.  The latter might refer to just 2: Stalin-the-stripper and JFK.  

Or to use the classic examples, both of the following are ambiguous:
"I'd like to thank my parents, Ayn Rand and God."
"I'd like to thank my mother, Ayn Rand, and God."

It all has to do with whether the second term alone is appositive of the first, and whether the second and third terms collectively are appositive of the first.  Sometimes both are ambiguous.  Sometimes reordering can remove the ambiguity, sometimes rewording is a better solution:
"We invited Stalin, JFK, and the stripper."
"I'd like to give thanks to my mother, to Ayn Rand, and to God."


----------

