Katherine
Armadillo Pup
From the moment you begin breathing you start dying too.
Posts: 44
|
Post by Katherine on Jun 2, 2011 21:59:29 GMT -5
I love them, for their clarity. None of the English teachers I've had so far have cared about its use, so I've always used them.
|
|
jessr
Armadillo Pup
"It is impossible to say just what I mean!"
Posts: 5
|
Post by jessr on Jun 2, 2011 21:59:40 GMT -5
I never knew what they were and when I found out about them, I realized that I had been using them all along and thought that I was doing something wrong. I use them when I feel like I need them.. if that makes sense.
I suck at grammar =|
|
|
|
Post by cyanea on Jun 2, 2011 23:04:20 GMT -5
When I was taught, we weren't even given the option. There's always one before the and/or/but in a list.
|
|
andy
Young Armadillo
Posts: 80
|
Post by andy on Jun 3, 2011 1:20:28 GMT -5
I don't really care for it as it defies logic. Or/but/and are conjunctions so they already separate the different terms of a list, using a comma to mark this separation again is a pleonasm.
|
|
alyoshka
Young Armadillo
Vous etes un chanteur des pommes.
Posts: 94
|
Post by alyoshka on Jun 3, 2011 1:59:27 GMT -5
When I was taught, we weren't even given the option. There's always one before the and/or/but in a list. same here.
|
|
|
Post by serpentheart on Jun 5, 2011 8:13:29 GMT -5
I was never taught to use one and now I am in university I don't get marked down for not using one so I believe they are useless, haha!
|
|
|
Post by iamahexagon on Jun 9, 2011 14:28:14 GMT -5
I always use them. I think that it clarifies the sentence and list. Example: "At the store, I bought pears, shirts, pants and cereal." Pants and cereal don't go together! "At the store, I bought pears, shirts, pants, and cereal." That just makes it look a lot better, in my opinion. (Yes, I know that this is an out-of-the-box example, but it serves its purpose.)
|
|
|
Post by iamahexagon on Jun 9, 2011 14:44:49 GMT -5
Side note: I found out that it was optional through FYEMA. Actually, one time, I mentioned it to my English teacher, and he had no idea what I was talking about until I told him what it was. I felt superior for a few minutes.
|
|
Dobby
Young Armadillo
Posts: 80
|
Post by Dobby on Jun 12, 2011 17:04:13 GMT -5
In my opinion, Oxford commas should always be required because they make the sentence easier to follow. It bugs me when other people not only don't use Oxford commas, but consider them incorrect. My English teacher always crosses out the Oxford commas in my papers. If you personally don't want to use them, I can deal with that, but they're still not incorrect - they're optional! (Although, as I stated earlier, I think they should be required).
|
|
Dobby
Young Armadillo
Posts: 80
|
Post by Dobby on Jun 12, 2011 17:05:53 GMT -5
I always use them. I think that it clarifies the sentence and list. Example: "At the store, I bought pears, shirts, pants and cereal." Pants and cereal don't go together! "At the store, I bought pears, shirts, pants, and cereal." That just makes it look a lot better, in my opinion. (Yes, I know that this is an out-of-the-box example, but it serves its purpose.) Exactly. The first sentence feels awkward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 10:17:56 GMT -5
I use them for clarity, but only when doing so is necessary. "At the store, I bought pears, shirts, pants and cereal" is fine in my opinion, but "At the store I bought two types of breakfast cereal, pears and shirts" reads as though 'pears' and 'shirts' are cereal brands! Of course there are ways of writing which remove the ambiguity and make the serial comma unnecessary, but given how natural the list is as a mannerism, it seems reasonable enough to use a grammatical flourish for clarity. That is, after all, why we have grammar in the first place.
|
|
alligator
Armadillo Pup
so it goes.
Posts: 18
|
Post by alligator on Jun 13, 2011 11:10:47 GMT -5
I was always taught that when there's no comma separating the noun and conjunction, you should assume the noun following the conjunction is a pair with the first noun (if that makes sense). So if the two nouns aren't a pair, you need the oxford comma.
"She bought apples, books, and a radio." is better than "She bought apples, books and a radio." because the second one makes "books and a radio" look like they're a pair.
I also like them because I just think it looks nicer.
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 14, 2011 1:05:42 GMT -5
They also improve the rhythm and symmetry of the sentence.
|
|
andy
Young Armadillo
Posts: 80
|
Post by andy on Jun 16, 2011 3:29:32 GMT -5
I use them for clarity, but only when doing so is necessary. "At the store, I bought pears, shirts, pants and cereal" is fine in my opinion, but "At the store I bought two types of breakfast cereal, pears and shirts" reads as though 'pears' and 'shirts' are cereal brands! Of course there are ways of writing which remove the ambiguity and make the serial comma unnecessary, but given how natural the list is as a mannerism, it seems reasonable enough to use a grammatical flourish for clarity. That is, after all, why we have grammar in the first place. Ah, see, the really beautiful thing about arguments in favour of the Oxford comma is the fact that it's not considered necessary in any Romance languages (in fact, it's thought of as a punctuation mistake) so if you write: 'J'ai achete deux types des cereales de petit-déjeuner, poires et chemises.' everybody will be able to figure out that pears and shirts are not cereals without the aid of a comma, but if you're an American (the use of serial commas in Britain has very few supporters - and, by the way, University of Oxford is not among them) and write: 'I bought two types of breakfast cereal, pears and shirts.' people will go mad trying to understand what you mean, pour milk down their shirts and try to eat them with a spoon for breakfast.
|
|
|
Post by iamahexagon on Jun 18, 2011 1:10:52 GMT -5
Ah, see, the really beautiful thing about arguments in favour of the Oxford comma is the fact that it's not considered necessary in any Romance languages (in fact, it's thought of as a punctuation mistake) so if you write: 'J'ai achete deux types des cereales de petit-déjeuner, poires et chemises.' everybody will be able to figure out that pears and shirts are not cereals without the aid of a comma, but if you're an American (the use of serial commas in Britain has very few supporters - and, by the way, University of Oxford is not among them) and write: 'I bought two types of breakfast cereal, pears and shirts.' people will go mad trying to understand what you mean, pour milk down their shirts and try to eat them with a spoon for breakfast. Stupid Americans! haha We're always trying to prove someone wrong and ourselves right. I love how we're all so opinionated on the issue, yet the thread is only two pages long.... Something I just thought of: The easiest way to be an annoying English Major would be asking people where they have their punctuation, such as the serial/Oxford comma, and then correcting them on it if they have it incorrect.
|
|