4 ms·
The way I read it, the intended meaning is as if the comma was right after shipment. A list like that requires a conjunction before the last element. "Or" serve
by marcoperaza 10y ago
The way I read it, the intended meaning is as if the comma was right after shipment. A list like that requires a conjunction before the last element. "Or" serves that function. If "or" was merely internal to the final item, it would be grammatically incorrect.
Here is the full context, with the only grammatically correct place to put the comma:
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.
edit: fixed formatting
- waqf 10y agoI agree, this is different from the classic Oxford comma ambiguities and I'm surprised more people aren't pointing this out. That being said, omitting the conjunction is a thing that people actually do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asyndeton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asyndeton), not just a grammatical error. Were I making legal arguments on this case, I would research whether this kind of asyndeton was a common construction in Maine state law.
- Silhouette 10y agoThat was my reaction as well. If the other meaning was intended, I think the sentence would be better written "...marketing, storing, or packing for shipment or distribution...". In that case, I think the comma after "storing" is necessary to avoid ambiguity because there are two "or" conjunctions, but at least the intended meaning is a correct interpretation. That said, I agree with other commenters that if your meaning relies so fundamentally on such a small grammatical point, you might do better using a different construction altogether.
- cvoss 10y agoI also read it the way you do. But interestingly, there is what appears to be an Oxford _semicolon_ between items (2) and (3). The inclusion of an Oxford delimiter in one list and its exclusion in another list would seem inconsistent. If anything, the second list is the one that does not need the extra punctuation because the items of that second list are also delimited by newlines and the enumeration. Very weird indeed.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- vilhelm_s 10y agoYeah. Actually, the court noted this as well: > the drivers’ textual points do not account for what seems to us to be Oakhurst’s strongest textual rejoinder: no conjunction precedes “packing.” Rather, the only conjunction in the exemption — “or” — appears before “distribution.” And so, on the drivers’ reading, the list is strangely stingy when it comes to conjunctions, as it fails to use one to mark off the last listed activity. To me, that seems really conclusive. I'm a little bit surprised that the court still thought the sentence was ambiguous.