The Oxford Comma Debate
"For want of a comma, we have this case."
NB: Something lite after Wednesday’s Charles Manson story.
If you’re not familiar with the debate over the Oxford comma, don’t be alarmed; it’s a bit obscure and what we do here is illuminate such things—you’re in the right place.
As a loyal member of The Oxford Comma Grammar Society (est. 1893) I'm pro-Oxford comma. Our motto: “Fighting ambiguity, confusion, and poor syntax.” Here is a brief explanation of the debate:
Sometimes called the “serial comma,” the Oxford comma is the final comma in a list of three or more things, for example:
Loyalists will write: “She asked me to buy bananas, milk, and orange juice.”
Those who find the serial comma redundant will write: “She asked me to buy bananas, milk and orange juice.”
Loyalists maintain the second approach is ambiguous, likely misunderstood thereby leading the reader to think that the “milk and orange juice” is one item (yuk).
Worse yet, ambiguity can be costly: The lack of the Oxford comma triggered a 10-million-dollar class-action lawsuit in 2017 involving a dairy and its drivers. The missing comma created differing expectations between employer and employees. The court ruled in favor of the drivers. The court’s finding can be found here. Take a look—it’s an interesting read. The judge begins, “For want of a comma, we have this case.”
