3 ms·
I immediately looked for the Commission's ruling on the Oxford comma. They approve it in only limited circumstances: "An additional comma before the final item
by dash2 6y ago
I immediately looked for the Commission's ruling on the Oxford comma. They approve it in only limited circumstances:
"An additional comma before the final item is sometimes essential to help clarify the sense. Compare the examples below:
X may not be added to beef, ham or processed meat and milk products [unclear]
The use of X is forbidden in beef, ham or processed meat, and milk products"
Bold, EC, very bold. But could this spark a backlash?
- me_me_me 6y agohaha, I just glanced at the contents section and then caught myself reading the same section. But got work to do :) So dull as this document sounds, I find it interesting reading.
- klodolph 6y agoNeither option (Oxford comma or no Oxford comma) is a bold choice. Both alternatives are endorsed by various style guides. Oxford comma is more common in the US, omitting it is more common in England, but every style guide agrees that the comma should be added / removed as necessary to fix ambiguity. There are definitely cases where introducing the serial comma creates ambiguity, because it can look like an appositive.
- da_big_ghey 6y agoMaybe are some irony in have "Oxford" coma use in America. Not use in Britain.
- laGrenouille 6y agoI think the name comes from the fact that Oxford is one of the few British style guides that encourage its use. In the U.S., most style guides at a minimum suggest it as a common option. Hence the somewhat ironic sounding name in a global context.
- MomoXenosaga 6y agoThe English language has transcended the English. The global English a Chinese person speaks with a French person is delightfully unconcerned with the Oxford dictionary. Iirc there is only one country in the EU left that speaks English.