Thread: Comma usage

Originally Posted by Sam W

You've got it the wrong way around, I'm afraid. The original way of writing always omitted the comma after a conjunction, i.e. 'and'. Language then evolved and today we have what's known as the 'Oxford comma', in which a comma is placed after 'and'. It didn't come before.

I swear by the Oxford comma. Consider this sentence: "The dresses were blue and white, yellow and white, and green and white". Without an Oxford comma there, you have two dresses. One is blue and white. The other is yellow and white and green and white. A lot of British newspapers don't use it, and it tends to be predominately an American style, but I've used it for years and would never revert to the old way.

You think?

The statement "blue and white, yellow and white, and green and white" tells me there were three dresses, because who would describe a dress as being 'yellow and white, and green and white"?

If there were to be two dresses, the dresses would be "blue and white, yellow and white and green".

If forced to use an Oxford comma, I would rather rewrite the sentence for clarity. To me ', and' is just wrong.

And is it ', and' you meant? Not 'and,' which is how you described it ("a comma is placed after 'and'.")

Originally Posted by MaggieMoo

I am old school and yes it is proper grammar. As an ex editor I have noticed over the past 10 years the use of the comma has changed so many times. Quite a few younger generation use a comma before the "and" however for me that is a big no-no. See the comma works just like an "and" it gives it a "pause" effect. Again, a lot of people today now use a comma before the "and". I guess it depends on who you work for.

I'm with you, Maggie. It must be an 'old bugger' thing

I also speak of 'an historical' and 'a hopeful', so I am not at all sure where I stand with that?

Originally Posted by Zootalaws

I'm with you, Maggie. It must be an 'old bugger' thing

Ha ha... Nothing wrong with being on the 'old bugger' list.

Originally Posted by Zootalaws

I also speak of 'an historical' and 'a hopeful', so I am not at all sure where I stand with that?

Golly aren't we all such sticklers in our own ways. Ha ha.

Unfortunately the Englsh language has changed quite dramatically over the past 10 years. I have also noticed in a lot of new books published here in Oz, that the sentences are shorter and less comma's are used. Another big no-no, from my time... Not that I am old or anything. I wouldn't want to give that impression. Ha ha ha ha.