Say it Ain't So!

Notice anything wrong with the photo caption above? A missing comma, perhaps?

Full disclosure: I am a staunch supporter of the serial comma (also called the “Oxford comma,” though I don’t use that phrase because I don’t want to contribute to Oxford’s appropriation of what should be common sense) and I tend to agree with Carbolic, who once remarked that "People who refuse to insert a serial comma would steal sheep." In case you haven't been sucked into this particular debate, the serial comma is the comma that real writers insert before the conjunction (usually “and”) when setting forth a list. Much ink has been spilled, and many brave young serial commas lost, no doubt, in the war over whether the serial comma is mandatory, desirable, or superfluous. For my part, it's near-mandatory, pretty much for the reasons the caption above is so funny.

Today is a sad day for those who share my news. Today’s sad news is that Oxford has officially dropped the “Oxford” comma from its detailed, lengthy, and at times snooty style guide. See here for a brief article and a highly distressing pie chart. Oxford’s new guidance provides:

As a general rule, do not use the serial/Oxford comma: so write ‘a, b and c’ not ‘a, b, and c’. But when a comma would assist in the meaning of the sentence or helps to resolve ambiguity, it can be used – especially where one of the items in the list is already joined by ‘and’ . . . .

Oxford be damned, I’m leaving my comma right where put them. I don’t have a devil-may-care attitude toward ambiguities (especially in legal writing), nor do I trust myself to catch every two-faced in every sentence I write. I view the serial as a tiny, curved insurance policy against situations – like the caption above – that could leave the reader wondering if I am aware of what I am saying. I will keep, like, and defend my serial comma. To the bitter end.


*Hat tip to Boalt's handsomest, dashingest Latin scholar for the tip.