3 ms·

When reading a written work aloud: is it typical that the decision to pause before the last item is determined by the Oxford comma (or lack thereof)? Personally

When reading a written work aloud: is it typical that the decision to pause before the last item is determined by the Oxford comma (or lack thereof)? Personally, I pause there regardless, for the same duration that I pause between items throughout the rest of the series.

alistairSH 3y ago
With Oxford comma: "We invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin." [three distinct items in the list] Without Oxford comma: "We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin."[two named items in the list] Reading with or without the pause is natural either way. And massively changes the meaning of the sentence.
- gerdesj 3y ago
  I cannot see a way that those sentences do not both mean the same (nonsensical) thing involving strippers, JFK and Stalin. I think that your analysis in [] is wrong. Your second example says two named items but it still has three - strippers, JFK and Stalin.
  - kergonath 3y ago
    > I cannot see a way that those sentences do not both mean the same (nonsensical) thing involving strippers, JFK and Stalin. This specific example is nonsensical to demonstrate the possible confusion, but this sort of confusion is really common. > I think that your analysis in [] is wrong. Your second example says two named items but it still has three - strippers, JFK and Stalin. No, in the second example, JFK and Stalin are two instances of strippers. So there are three nouns, but only two people.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    In the sentence with ann Oxford comma, there are a group of strippers, plus two men. In the sentence without, there are two strippers, the first named JFK, the second named Stalin. Here’s a drawing to help… http://helveticka.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/oxfordcomma1.jpg http://helveticka.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/oxford...
- sov 3y ago
  Without Oxford comma: "We invited JFK, the stripper and Stalin." [three distinct items in the list] With Oxford comma: "We invited JFK, the stripper, and Stalin."[two named items in the list with an appositive affirming that we're talking about JFK the stripper and not the former president]
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Yes, changing the order and the number of items (plural strippers in original to singular stripper in yours) changes the meaning. That is unsurprising.
thfuran 3y ago
You can't always know whether you've reached the last item in the list or whether it has just turned out that you're halfway through reading the last item, which is a compound clause. Unless, that is, serial commas are reliably present.
kergonath 3y ago
> When reading a written work aloud: is it typical that the decision to pause before the last item is determined by the Oxford comma (or lack thereof)? People are sometimes careless when they write and when they read but a comma does indicate a short pause. So yes, strictly speaking, the “decision to pause” (which is not really a decision) is determined by the presence of a comma. Often the presence of a pause changes the meaning of the list; there are several examples in this thread. In these cases, adding or removing a comma does alter the meaning of the sentence and should be avoided.

alistairSH 3y ago

With Oxford comma: "We invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin." [three distinct items in the list] Without Oxford comma: "We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin."[two named items in the list] Reading with or without the pause is natural either way. And massively changes the meaning of the sentence.

gerdesj 3y ago
I cannot see a way that those sentences do not both mean the same (nonsensical) thing involving strippers, JFK and Stalin. I think that your analysis in [] is wrong. Your second example says two named items but it still has three - strippers, JFK and Stalin.
- kergonath 3y ago
  > I cannot see a way that those sentences do not both mean the same (nonsensical) thing involving strippers, JFK and Stalin. This specific example is nonsensical to demonstrate the possible confusion, but this sort of confusion is really common. > I think that your analysis in [] is wrong. Your second example says two named items but it still has three - strippers, JFK and Stalin. No, in the second example, JFK and Stalin are two instances of strippers. So there are three nouns, but only two people.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  In the sentence with ann Oxford comma, there are a group of strippers, plus two men. In the sentence without, there are two strippers, the first named JFK, the second named Stalin. Here’s a drawing to help… http://helveticka.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/oxfordcomma1.jpg http://helveticka.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/oxford...
sov 3y ago
Without Oxford comma: "We invited JFK, the stripper and Stalin." [three distinct items in the list] With Oxford comma: "We invited JFK, the stripper, and Stalin."[two named items in the list with an appositive affirming that we're talking about JFK the stripper and not the former president]
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Yes, changing the order and the number of items (plural strippers in original to singular stripper in yours) changes the meaning. That is unsurprising.

thfuran 3y ago

You can't always know whether you've reached the last item in the list or whether it has just turned out that you're halfway through reading the last item, which is a compound clause. Unless, that is, serial commas are reliably present.

kergonath 3y ago

> When reading a written work aloud: is it typical that the decision to pause before the last item is determined by the Oxford comma (or lack thereof)? People are sometimes careless when they write and when they read but a comma does indicate a short pause. So yes, strictly speaking, the “decision to pause” (which is not really a decision) is determined by the presence of a comma. Often the presence of a pause changes the meaning of the list; there are several examples in this thread. In these cases, adding or removing a comma does alter the meaning of the sentence and should be avoided.