A University of Oxford Style Guide has decided to go minimalist on all the grammarians and drop the oxford comma. They’re making big decisions over there. Watch out:
‘“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’ [for example]: They had a choice between croissants, bacon and eggs, and muesli.”’
(via MoJo)
5 responses
Amen to that.
They’ll only get my Oxford comma when they pry my cold dead prose from around it.
I’ve heard tell that this is only for the PR department of the University of Oxford–and as such, not affiliated with Oxford University Press, which is an independent commercial entity (and proponent of the Oxford comma). http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/the-oxford-comma-is-not-dead_b33436
The Oxford Comma will never die!
The serial comma is so important in interpreting the structure of any list that has some ambiguity that I think it should continue to be taught and used as the standard and certainly used in any writing that purports to be clear and precise. (You may say: What writing doesn’t have those goals?)For interpretation a careful reader looks for consistency in its use. / I can understand that PR’s wanting to go with a more popular and less cluttered-looking standard, but I can’t understand that they would complicate the choice by making the writer and reader choices branched. Are we heading toward another that/which situation? A reader can’t count on a writer’s precise understanding of that branched choice, even though it clarifies meaning when used correctly. A serial comma, unlike that/which, never has an incorrect implication. Why can’t that comma usage be kept consistent?
They had a choice between croissants, bacon and eggs, and muesli.â€â€™
No–AMONG, not BETWEEN three items…
Durfus
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.