I had always heard of it and thought it was some extensive, hard-to-remember grammar rule that I wouldn’t be able to understand in a million years. But when I looked into it I realised it is something I use everyday!
Francelyn Binondo No, not at all. That's primarily because the conjunction that's equivalent to "and" in Arabic is just a single letter; the letter "و". It's easy to pronounce and takes up very little space.
TedEd was covering the debate between the Oxford's comma usage, not saying that it was up for debate. It's pretty well-accepted that the Oxford comma is grammatically correct, as can be see in the last example.
I actually abandoned what I was taught in favor of the Oxford comma. I also put punctuation outside of quotes when it is not part of the quote because i am a programmer and logic demands it.
"Punctuation outside the Quotes". It is logical when the punctuation is outside the quote if it is not part of the quote, i thought that was normal and should only be a comma or period anyway. "Punctuation inside the Quotes!" - he exclaimed, @sabret00the if it is part of the quote is also normal and would usually be an exclaimation or question mark - that is my understanding.
I use the oxford comma and put the punctuation outside the quote if it isn’t part of the quote (Ex: Erin said, “My name is Erin.”. Notice the two periods.)
are you supposed to bring Bob (who is a DJ) and a clown? that's how the sentence with the Oxford comma treats to many people. the Oxford comma creates as much ambiguity as it resolves.
@@nicholus_h2 Well to be honest I don't see a confusion here, if I were to encounter a sentence like "Bob, a DJ and a clown" I'd assume to bring Bob, a person who has the ability to be both a Dj and a clown at the same time. With the oxford comma I can understand that its "Bob, a DJ, and a clown" so I bring 1 Bob, 1 DJ, and 1 clown. 3 completely different people
@@shwarzn- The list itself is bad though, as you can still argue that you were asked to bring two people: Bob who is a DJ and a yet unknown clown. A better list altogether might be, "a DJ, a clown and Bob," since there is little chance mistaking the meaning there.
@@shwarzn- If I wanted you to bring two people: 1. Bob (who is a DJ), and 2. a clown, using the Oxford comma, i would write "bring Bob, a DJ, and a clown." And, as you stated, you would incorrectly assume I meant to bring 3 completely different people. So...you assume there's no confusion, but you actually proved its there. The Oxford comma has introduced just as much confusion as it cleared up.
+Even Andy In short sentences some writers will remove the "serial comma" because it feels unnecessary. You'll find that most situations where you use a "serial comma" you would be better off with using a ";" or splitting the sentence into or adding "()". In a school setting they prefer you not to use the serial comma because it increases sentence length. Increase in sentence length often results in sentences that convey more than one idea. Convey more than one idea makes understating the sentence a lot harder for the reader. As a result in an academic settings it's often found upon as a bad hobbit.
Yeah, I’m a fan of the Oxford comma because it makes the items listed more parallel, hence clear, to me. It did bother one of my professors before and his argument was simply “it used up a space.” I think I’ll continue to use it.
Dus this mean you are a new Jezus? Around minute 3.09 there stands "Ik draag dit boek op aan mijn ouders, Ayn Rand en God." So your parents got to be Ayn Rand and God? betekend dit dat jij een nieuwe Jezus bent? rond minuut 3.09 staat er. "I dedicate this book to my parents, Ayn Rand and God." Dus jouw ouders zijn Ayn Rand en God? +Fishbiene Irony noticed
+Fishbiene no, because I'm sure there is much common ground in each of their own respective goals and desires, depending on which god you are talking about and at which point in her life Ayn Rand was.
My English teachers in High School opposed it, and even marked it as a mistake and lowered my grades for using it. My teachers in classes at UNLV hated it too, but they didn't mark me down for using it. I use it because it makes my writing easier to read, parse, and understand.
+Ron Fink I experienced the opposite. I was taught not to use it, but was marked down for not using by one of my lecturers at uni. I actually find lists of three or more items easier to understand without it. "Bring Bob, the DJ, and a dog" implies for me that Bob is the DJ, and thus I'd be looking for a DJ called Bob!
I see what you did there, and I totally respect that. Yet, the final comma makes my reading stumble a bit, like I find a final distraction on my way to the exit. I, personally, find it very easy to understand that "read, parse and understand" refer to the adverb "easier", but the comma makes it kinda seem "look, it makes my writing easier to read, parse and SEE, IT ALSO MAKES IT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND. DID YOU SEE IT? I MADE IT MORE THAN EVIDENT". As it's been said in the video, the personal preference has a part. I'd get rid of Oxford commas in simple lists, but would leave them in more complex sentences, like the first of this rant.
For the people from different languages suggesting their ways of doing things to be better, remember in English we have the 2 words of Read and Read when it comes to the action or completion of the action of reading a booking.... the way we tell them apart is that one is pronounced like the word lead whereas the other one is pronounced like the word lead.
I like the serial comma because if you don't use it, the last two items in a list look like they should be one entity or you don't read it right the first time because you don't pause when reading. For example: "Lisa, Jack, Angela, Henry and Grace" looks like the list should be going on because the comma should be what separates the words, not conjunctions. Also, conjunctions can be included in lists like: "Hector and April, Lou and Mary, Geoff and Carol, and Francis and Frankie are married."
I've always been taught not to use the Oxford comma, but nevertheless I tend to use it because I usually take the view that it makes things clearer. I got asked in an English test once to put the commas in a piece of writing, and I was left with no idea whether they wanted me to use Oxford commas or not as their usage is such a debated issue!
How to solve the problem (in Sweden) Enumeration: "bob, a dj and a clown" (3 ppl) To signal that bob is a dj and a clown there's one formal and one informal way. "Bob: a dj and a clown" (formal) "Bob - a dj and a clown" (informal) The formal is used for clarity and will be found in science papers etc. The informal is used for a smooth reading experience such as you expect from say a novel. I can't imagine what would prevent the anglo-saxon world from adopting a system like this and watch the problem go away. *sees the metric system* oh
I like the outro text. *"I dedicate this book to my parents, Any Rand and God."* This reminds me of Eats, Shoots, and Leaves. Btw I'm all for the oxford comma, too.
Maybe a better sentence might be " *I dedicate this book to my mom, my dad, Ayn Rand and God,* " since the items of the list are now all singular. Parallelism is important y'all
Here in India we follow british English and I didn't even know of the existence of the Oxford comma until watching this video. I've always been taught to never put a comma before a conjunction.
I didn't grow up using it but started implementing it out of necessity when listing item pairs eg "Gin and juice, lemon and lime and rum and cola" becomes: "Gin and juice, lemon and lime, and rum and cola" Or possibly with ampersands: "Gin & juice, lemon & lime, and rum & cola" I dont know if this is technically the best way but it read the best to my eyes and internal monologue.
I think most people keen on coherent communication would opt to use it, and for good measure, too. I love the Oxford comma (call me a commanist) for its function, and I also love it stylistically, since for me, a comma can be like a breath in a sentence, so having a list where you have a breath between each item except the last two would just sound inconsistent and add unwanted emphasis. Like "daisies, sunflowers, tulips, and roses" as opposed to "daisies, sunflowers, tulips and roses". It might entirely depend on the reader, but at least for me, the second version both looks and sounds inconsistent and awkward because there is a visible barrier created by the comma between the first three items but not between the last two. Oxford comma just reads and looks better.
Hello. For my personal taste, the last comma is unnecessary. If a writer does not trust their audience to separate sunflowers from tulips and daisies, I think there is a bigger problem. As the languages tend to go with the simplification, my prognosis is for the Oxford comma to dissipate in the next 5-10 years or so. Maybe the serial comma will be substituted with "and also", which again, for my taste, solves the problem quite radically.
It's jarring to me. Breaks the flow of the sentence. I never use them, never see a need to use them, just write the sentence clearly as you would speak it to someone, then you never need oxford commas
I always use Oxford comma because I feel that it's more "fair" to the words. I list things and I want every single one of them accompanied by a punctuation mark. I don't want any of the words to be lonely.
I generally avoid it but sometimes notice that it would be useful. Grammar is basically just about making your writing easily understandable for your readers. Good grammar is just good manners. :-)
I am an English Undergrad at university and I support the Oxford comma. It makes sense to me. Solves more problems than it causes. My school didn’t teach it but I think I started using it at university when I found out about it.
I always use oxford commas when listing things. It sounds more natural in pronunciation. If Bob is a DJ and a clown then I am less likely to pause between those two things. If I were listing "Bob, a DJ, and a clown" I would likely pause while saying each item on the list. To solve the problem I would probably use a dash or reword the sentence. Perhaps "Bob, a clowning DJ"
My 4th grade writing teacher forced us to use the oxford comma in all cases. She also asked for clarity on situations that would have been more clear without that comma. I learned rather young that it needs to be chosen based on the content of the sentence and not for aesthetic purposes. Sadly I never had a teacher who agreed with me on that point.
I always instinctively and reflexively use this comma. For example, we have conventions already that point out different clauses in a sentence so that the idea can be grasped easily. If we want to say that ninjas, pirates, and vikings, who included among their number both old and young ages, then we'd simply say "Ninjas, pirates, and vikings, both old and young". If we meant to extend to old and young people who were not those first three entities, then we'd say "Ninjas, pirates, vikings, and others both old and young." If all of them were both old and young then you'd simply alter it like this "Ninjas, pirates, and vikings, all both old and young". You don't have to make a sentence so poorly that it's entire meaning hinges on a comma. If you wanted to specify one of those categories, then you'd say "Ninjas, pirates, and vikings both old and young." It's not that difficult. And in this case you are without reasonable ambiguity. Look further into it and it is even more apparent that the "Sensible Comma" is needed to avoid confusions. What if it had read "Ninjas, pirates and vikings both old and young"? Then clearly you are emphasizing that pirates and vikings had both old and young instances.
I was never taught to use, or not use the oxford comma. apparently I have been using it without knowing for a long time. The reason I used it was 1: It clears confusion. And 2: If I was reading aloud I would have naturally placed a small pause in the location of said comma.
Just ran into a problem ordering doughnuts. The store's website lists a variety of flavors they can drizzle on them,: chocolate, caramel, lemon, raspberry & blackberry. I assumed that it was a "raspberry & blackberry" flavored drizzle, rather than two separate drizzles. A) those flavors are commonly combined, B) they used and ampersand rather than the word 'and', which I often equate to a "+", C) I was raised using the Oxford comma. When it comes to lists, there should be a comma between every unique item on the list.
I'm German and wrote a thesis in English. I really envy the English language for that comma. Even without knowing of its existents, the related problem occurred to me many times when writing German texts.
It is spelt "existence". I expect you are German and English is not your first language, so I cannot hold you liable for spelling mistakes. Still, you clicked on a video that was about English language rules, so you have to expect someone would correct you.
It actually surprises me that there is anything about English that is superior compared to German. The way Germans talk, German is a god tier language that does everything better than other languages. Why do Germans say this? Is it true that German is the most comprehensive language? I’ve heard German is more precise, clear, direct, and flexible. The titular saying with regard to the German language is a true one. When people say, “The Germans have a word for that”, this is not an exaggeration; the German language is almost endlessly expandable and its vocabulary is almost infinitely flexible, with new words being able to be created spontaneously just by combining two German nouns together.
@@ThinWhiteLuke Whilst you are not wrong, punctuation and lexicology are different parts of any given language. While German is more flexible in terms of making new words from the existing ones, English may be richer in some other things. Also, it is good to keep in mind that German and English belong to different language groups, meaning they are not really comparable from a linguistics point of view. I'm not an accomplished linguist myself, those are just my thoughts as a person who's interested in languages.
The contra of "Bob, a DJ (descriptive), and a puppy" can be avoided without any additional info, simply by adhering to conversational standards: Dont bring up information when it's not necessary. You want a list of ppl to bring? List them, and them only. Noone needs to know hes a DJ. And if its important enough, put it in a separate sentence. "Bob and a puppy. Bob will be the DJ."
The way you were raised has a clear impact on this: the country you're from, the people who surround you. Personaly though, I think it's crazy how the video said America is one of the bigger users. One time this girl told me she knew I was foreign not because of an accent, but because of my constant (and, in her opinion, kinda unecessary) use of commas.
Yes, my native language is portuguese and we use comas as much as it seems necessary and it always made me confused because my teacher once told me that americans don't use it that often. Now that I noticed it is not weird and that it is truly recognized I'm going to start using more comas in my texts.
We never use Oxford comma in Portuguese (at least, I never ever heard/saw it). Which is funny, because usually it's taught American English. And I never saw it in English. In Portuguese, we some "rules" to avoid that confusion, even if it requires some repetition. We would say "Bring Bob, that is a DJ, and a clown". When we the verb requires preposition, sometimes we can repeate it, like: "Give the gift to Bob, to a DJ and to a clown".
The trick is to always consider the use of a comma to be part of a list when ever it is not being used as a clarification pause, or the bridging of correlative statements. (Bracketed sentences work perfectly well as qualifiers, and for delivering superfluous clarifications.)
I use the Oxford comma because I think typically it solves more problems than it creates. If I were using the list in the video I would write “Bob, a DJ, and a clown” if I meant 3 separate people and “Bob (a DJ) and a clown” if I meant 2. If Bob is both a DJ and a clown I’d say “Bob, who is a DJ and a clown”. If the comma itself (or lack thereof) could still be ambiguous I would put more context for the sake of clarity. I’m very much pro-Oxford comma though.
Thanks for the video. As English is not my mother tongue, I didn’t know that such problem exists. It never occurred to me that: “Bob, a DJ and a clown” can mean that Bob is both those things. But I wonder, why don’t you use for example a rule, like in Slavic languages: The Meaning “Bob is ...” would be written down like “Bob - a DJ and a clown” because it is a definition. Or If you want to say: “My parents are Ayn Rand and God”, you would be writing “My parents: Ayn Rand and God”
You can. It's people's poor grammar skills make the comma a substitute for other punctuation. I personally advocate most widespread use of all variants of colons, dashes and brackets currently underutilized. A good rule of thumb for writing a good list is structure matters more that punctuation, though you still might have to be a mind reader for bad sentences lol.
I was brought up in the east coast USA where absolutely we were taught "no comma!" I was in my thirties when I finally bucked the local trend and began using it, to my Chicago-based editor's approval.
I'm from ireland and when I heard it I immediately thought that she had to bring three different people and I don't understand the confusion. I can't understand how people would interpret it differently
It's the written form which is problematic, not the spoken form. If in the spoken form the pause between each word is the same, you can infer there are three people; but if there were a longer pause between "Bob" and "a DJ and a clown," you would instead infer that the latter pair describe Bob. Now imagine that the presence of a comma adds a slightly longer pause between words than where a comma is absent. This makes you "hear" the latter case when reading.
so I'm from a non-english speaking country and here the oxford comma was never up to discussion, but that didn't stop me from using it in a dictation because the added comma contributes so much to the flow of a sentence when read in your mind. It was my only mistake, yet to me it was a rebellion against grammar for a more intuitive, heartfelt style of writing. 7th grade was wild.
I really don't get why this is confusing, maybe because I'm not an English native speaker but seriously, if Bob is a dj you could just say "Bring bob the dj and a clown" the other way sounds like there are 3 different people. And the end bit sounds like the dedication is for 4 people which are mum, dad, any rand and God. If you wanna imply your parents are Ayn Rand and God you just don't put the comma after the word parents.
Or you know: "Bring Bob (a DJ) and a clown." Who would EVER seriously write "Bring Bob, a DJ and a clown," when they weren't referring to separate entities? Nobody writes like that in real life.
In Chinese, instead of using commas (，) to separate parts of a list, we use a different punctuation mark. Used like this: Bring Bob、a DJ and a clown. We don't really use the oxford comma as the and or (和) is already good enough.
My problem with this comma is actually how I was taught to use it. My teacher had told me to only use it when the three items were all different, but that only confused me. I thought of different as in the categorical similarities of the items. But it is much easier to understand that you should separate with the comma what you want to imply as being separate.
I think not using the serial comma is a lot more annoying than without. O _o It just looks wrong, on top of being confusing. Canadian. Some of us use it, most of us don't. Drives me insane.
You use a comma to denote a pause if you were reading your text out loud. If I’m reading off a list of three or more things, I invariably do find myself pausing before the “and” that comes before the last item in the list. So I am a firm supporter of the Oxford comma👍
We were actually taught an ingenious solution at school. If you mean one person, you write "Bring Bob, DJ and clown", where the additional clause highlights different criteria/professions. However, "Bring Bob, 'a' DJ and 'a' clown" indicates that they are three separate entities, and thus require introductory articles. The focus shifts on the article than the comma. It's present in the Wren and Martin.
For the last part, to avoid confusion couldn't you state the adjective before the noun? Everyone had a great time, young and old Ninjas, Pirates, Vikings, etc... I'm not very good at English....
As others have said, there are times when the Oxford comma is needed for clarity, or just to more naturally mimic speech. Since one should always be consistent within a written work as to whether or not one uses it, it can be concluded that the Oxford comma should therefore always be used. HOWEVER, one should always reread what one writes, anyway. Keep an eye out... if the use of the Oxford comma makes it appear to be part of a parenthetical phrase rather than a separation of list items, simply rewrite the sentence to avoid ambiguity. Done! No further debate needed.
Use a dash if using the Oxford comma would confuse those not used to it though. Say ´Bob - a DJ and a clown' if Bob is the DJ and the clown. If you say 'Bob, a DJ and a clown' some will think you mean 2 (Bob being the DJ and someone else being the clown) or 3 people even though, gramatically, you mean one person.
I am from Brazil and it is almost impossible to imagine the Portuguese language without "Oxford commas". The comma in my language has several usage rules. It is used to isolate toponyms, separate coordinated clauses free of connectives that connect them (asyndetic), separate clauses initiated by adversative, alternative, conclusive or explanatory conjunctions, isolate explanatory expressions, separate appositions, and vocatives in a sentence, separate an anticipated or interspersed adverbial adjunct between the speech, isolate an anticipated pleonastic complement to the verb, indicating the suppression of an implied verb in a sentence (ellipse), separate adverbial clauses when they precede the main clause, but on the other hand it should not be used to separate terms that from a syntactical point of view directly establish a connection between themselves, between the verb and its complements, etc. Some people can find it tricky to master comma usage in Portuguese. As a non-native speaker of English, I try to avoid commas. I used many above and probably some of them are misplaced.
Portuguese does *not* follow the oxford comma. (Museu da Língua Portuguesa, Vírgula [ , ]) Elementos coordenados em enumerações que apresentam a mesma função sintática, quando não são separados pelas conjunções e, ou, nem, são separados por vírgulas. Por exemplo: - João, Vitória e Ana Maria foram promovidos pelo diretor da transportadora. - Vou comprar farinha, manteiga, ovos, leite, canela e açúcar para fazer biscoitos.
@@PY4004SWL Amapá, Piauí, Alagoas, Rondônia" "e Ceará. O lugar em destaque é onde a virgula serial e inserida. A ligua Portuguesa, pelos menos no Brasil, não tem a tradição de adicionar essa virgula. Toda lingua tem a tradição de colocar virgulas pra seperar items de uma lista, mas o portugues e outras liguas mantem que a virgula final não é necessaria.
That's why in Spanish the comma to separate elements is practically always used (especially before "y" and "además"), most for esthetic purposes, and to difference all the separate elements.
¿De qué hablas? Antes de “y” no suele ponerse coma. Compara las frases: “Zapatos, vestidos y todo tipo de prendas” ✅ vs. “Zapatos, vestidos, y todo tipo de prendas”, que no está mal, pero es menos adecuada. Sí se puede usar coma (y se recomienda) en casos como el siguiente: “Había [yo] terminado el trabajo, y cuando fui a entregárselo…”. En este ejemplo no se están listando entidades análogas como en el ejemplo de "Ben, a DJ and a clown". Si no fuera por la coma, el lector podría pensar que se trata de una serie de cosas terminadas, la primera de ellas “el trabajo”. El supuesto lector entendería: “Había terminado el trabajo y [algo más]”. Por supuesto que se daría cuenta de su error enseguida, pero de todos modos, la falta de la coma habría entorpecido la lectura y es algo que puede fácilmente evitarse.
I was raised in a country that doesn't use English as it's first language, and the language we do use doesn't use Oxford commas, but because I use the internet every day, and thus read a lot of English, I have begun prefering to use Oxford commas. It was probably also because one of my English teachers once mentioned to always put a comma before "and", and I could never remember if that rule was for English, or for my native language, so I did it for both. I personally prefer it because if it's not used, I group it like this: (one), (two and three) or: (one and two), (two and three), ... There are also a variety of other writing rules that I never learned in school, but that I lrarned from seeing other people do it.
One time when I was young my teacher said to never put a comma before 'and' and I was so confused cause I thought it was fine and I'm still annoyed at her cause using an Oxford comma has been so useful
in Indonesia, we were taught to use the oxford comma as a standardised writing. I was once get confused when I read some sentences in my English textbook that didn't use the oxford comma, just like the example written in the video. I thought it was a typo but it turns out there's a debate about commas out there 🙄
Grammar is suppose to help make language clearer. If the Oxford comma or lack of makes a sentence confusing, then rewrite the sentence to avoid both. For example, for the DJ, Bob, and the Dog. I would just break it up into three bullet points or have them numbered. Can you get: 1. A DJ. 2. Bob. 3. A Puppy. Or, if you want them all in one sentence, then maybe write it as "Let's get (1) Bob, (2) the DJ, and (3) a puppy. You can remove the comma in this case and it will still work. Point is, while my method isn't the best, it is harder for the person on the other end to not understand what you are saying.
I’m a big fan of the Oxford comma. I find it clear and useful. My colleagues at work disagree and in fact have chastised me for using it - demanding I remove it from my writing
Was raised without even being told it was an option, and that you should never put a comma before an "and". There are far fewer places where the Oxford comma is ambiguous than where it's useful, so I've adopted it, despite what I was originally taught. Though I do wish more people would think of the option of simply rearranging list items.
I saw thing that said: "I dedicate this book to my parents, Ayn Rand and God" at the end and without even thinking I was automatically like, *"You forgot the comma"*
In the examples of confusion from USING the oxford comma, i don't see how it was actually the comma that caused the confusion, it seems it would be confusing with, and without the comma.
At the beginning when the sentence was 'Please bring Bob, a DJ and a clown', I thought the woman was asked to bring the DJ and a clown for Bob. Anyone else read it like that?
Umm, i still use the comma, it can change the way people say the thing that they are reading in their heads, making it mean something different. (EDIT)I already have a habit of using the comma as you can see, and i didnt even notice...
In a sense, grammar rules (e.g. punctuation) are _literally_instructions on how to recreate spoken language from written language. And like it or not, commas are the go-to punctuation mark used to express a short pause between two words.
We use commas before any extra clauses with additional information, you see (I just did, in fact). We do so whether there is a conjunction starting the additional clause or not, so I've never understood why there is even a debate. When we are describing someone in detail (not making a list) we often say something like, "She looked through her smudged, cracked, dented sunglasses." Taking away the final comma would just be ridiculous: "...smudged, cracked dented glasses." The serial comma serves the same function as that comma in my example. So I can't justify not using it. When one does not use the serial comma and then accidental confusion is caused, the solution is to use parentheses to specify. But isn't that far more work than simply using the serial comma?! Why would we do more work? And in the rare cases where a serial comma might cause confusion (the video's given example seems rather flimsy), we would just use parentheses for clarification: "Bring Bob (a DJ) and a clown." But that happens so rarely, that it is hardly a reason to stop using serial commas.
In the UK, I was never taught about the oxford comma, but, since being online, I have been told off so many times for not using it so I have always been confused. Thank you!
The Oxford comma is widely considered incorrect grammar in the UK. In my own opinion, I think the comma itself is not necessarily where the confusion comes from - it's the way a sentence is built and the key words used instead. If you want to ask someone to bring three separate people, you would say "bring Bob, a DJ and a clown". In this sentence, by using 'a' before 'DJ' and 'clown', you are separating the clauses and implying that Bob, the DJ and the clown are separate people. A more confusing sentence would be: "bring Bob, the DJ and a clown". This could imply that Bob is the DJ or that they are both different people. The clown would be considered a separate person in this sentence either way. If you say: "bring Bob, the DJ and clown", this would heavily imply that Bob is both the DJ and the clown. If you say: "bring Bob, the DJ and the clown", this would again imply that all three are different people. By using 'the' before both the DJ and the clown, you have separated all three clauses again (Bob, DJ and clown). If you want to be super clear that all three people are separate people, I would consider either rearranging the sentence or by using more verbs: "can you pick up Bob, collect the DJ and bring the clown". If you want to explain that Bob is a DJ and a clown as clearly as possible, you you would usually use a hyphen, a semi colon or use brackets, such as: "bring Bob (the DJ and clown)". If you would still like to use a comma in your sentence if explaining that Bob is both a DJ and a clown, a simple noun would do the trick: "bring Bob, he's a DJ and a clown". I think it's just about structuring your sentences to be as clear as possible and to do that you need to consider the words you use in conjunction with your punctuation - they both go hand in hand.
In Italian Primary Schools , many years ago, I have been thought that you should never use the comma before the conjunction "and" because it would mean saying two times "and" or putting two commas together (since they have the same function: separating words), of course with the exception of parenthetical clauses ( es: I'm hungry,of course, and thirsty). But growing up and facing more complex texts to write, I realised that some time you need it.
2:20 "old and young" aren't the last two items in the list; they are descriptors of the already completed list. You wouldn't say "people, old, and young"; you'd say "people old and young" because you're describing the people, not listing three separate groups. A comma there would be completely unnecessary, confusing, and not an Oxford comma at all.
the point is that as long as the oxford comma is optional, we can never truly know what was meant. there's no debating, no arguing, nothing. the only way to know if the writer meant "old and young" as in describing the previous people or as in introducing two new groups is to ask the writer himself.
As a person for whom English is not their mother tongue, the Oxford comma rule seems quite confusing. For the lists, we use "and" only, without a comma before the final element of the list (hence, no Oxford comma). To introduce the quality of an object we've mentioned before, we use dashes. It's look like "Bring Bob - a DJ and a puppy" if Bob is both; and "Bring Bob, a DJ and a puppy" if those are three separate things. I guess, it'll remain the eternal struggle, just like the imperial system of units.
I doubt the casual reader sees it that way. For example, I doubt you read "and/or/nor" into the comma in this sentence. Granted and/or/nor commas do have multiple uses and/or/nor this can be confusing since most other punctuation marks only have one primary use. Commas actually serve to indicate pause. In the above sentence, if I wrote it as, "Granted commas do have multiple uses," you might at first think "granted" was an adjective describing commas, not a separate idea. The comma could possibly be replaced with "but," but this produces a lengthy, exhausting sentence when read aloud. The comma allows the reader to take a break, collect his thoughts, and launch into the main idea of the sentence from a stronger position. It is clear to everyone where the sentence begins. Now I realize you're only referring to commas in lists, but they function pretty well the same. Obviously, if I removed the comma in my previous sentence, it would be grammatically incorrect. We are taught to place a comma between two separate but connected ideas when they have different subjects. The comma works in tandem with the conjunction "but"; maintaining that commas can imply conjunctions fails in this case because the comma is necessary to indicate a longer pause. there are some languages like mandarin chinese that at least historically didnt make use of punctuation but they have since adopted it because of how useful it is in english however i dont think that mandarin employs the oxford comma but as you can see in this paragraph more punctuation is a good thing i suppose if you werent raised on the oxford comma then you could do fine without it but try extrapolating that to other forms of punctuation and see how well you do those of us who were raised on that comma have a hard time seeing printed writing without it although it isnt quite as difficult as reading this paragraph must be because at least it is more common but it still looks incorrect to us I'm not trying to be snarky or anything; I just wanted to illustrate why your statement doesn't tell the whole story. It isn't untrue, but it only really applies if you were taught not to use the Oxford comma in the first place.
I used to always use an Oxford Comma when I was in school even before I knew it was an actual grammatical device. Not all of my teachers were that keen on using it as some saw it as being clumsy. The idea that a comma should never precede the word 'and' was a rule that was followed with such stubborn adherence and I couldn't get my head around it. It wasn't until I progressed to top set English that my teacher actually encouraged the use of the comma.
We always use it in Canada. "A green, red and yellow snake" (total of two snakes, one that's green and the other is a mix of yellow and green) and "A green, red, and yellow snake" (total of three snakes, one of each colour). It helps avoid mistakes when interpreting.
![Summer Walker - Heart Of A Woman [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFddctbZzw8/mqdefault.jpg)
Bring:
* Bob
* A DJ
* A clown
ITR not any better. a little bit excessive compared to straight forward sentence.
You're hired for Oxford
*Harvard: 1 missed call
dude...
*THAT'S GENIUS*
* and a puppy
I remember being taught that it was optional, but I kept using it anyway because to me it seemed more organized. Just my opinion and preference.
@@fallingumbrellahunter205 nah the first sentence is more cleaner, the one with the comma. You just being delusional
@@Fx_Explains tht's what he has said XDD "It would be more cleaner than not using it"
Agreed.
I had always heard of it and thought it was some extensive, hard-to-remember grammar rule that I wouldn’t be able to understand in a million years. But when I looked into it I realised it is something I use everyday!
Same lol
In Arabic, we put a conjunction after every separate entity.
So, it's like saying "Bring Bob and a DJ and a clown.
أحمد الشافعى That's a great system! That's how it works in programming languages, too.
أحمد الشافعى that's super interesting. it seems like another great way to avoid confusion.
And here in 'Murica, it's just not natural for that.
+أحمد الشافعى Isn't redundant?
Francelyn Binondo No, not at all.
That's primarily because the conjunction that's equivalent to "and" in Arabic is just a single letter; the letter "و". It's easy to pronounce and takes up very little space.
I just realized, the video favors the Oxford comma because it placed one at 0:39, writing: "and, or, or nor", instead of: "and, or or nor"
TedEd was covering the debate between the Oxford's comma usage, not saying that it was up for debate.
It's pretty well-accepted that the Oxford comma is grammatically correct, as can be see in the last example.
Gabriel Henschen I don’t see the problem. And you just did what you told them not to do.
@Gabriel Henschen that really only applies to questions. Besides, most people don't mind and you didn't write the original comment
or or nor looks really funny
I caught that as well!
"And the very idea of a grammatical rule being optional is a bit odd."
Welcome to English. Where there's a half dozen exceptions to every rule.
🙃🙃
If you think English is inconsistent...
don't even start learning Dutch....
it's a nightmare...
*shivers*
@@doeliewaaje1761 well it would be easy to speak rather than to write, I guess??
@@chiefdvm1671 well yeah that's true...
The way it's written is just really weird...
@@doeliewaaje1761 yeah...it's with every language😢
"There are so many bigger things to worry about."
Don't be silly, the Coronavirus is smaller than a comma.
Underrated lol!
you deserve a like
you deserve a like
The fact that this comment is 3 years ago 😱
I actually abandoned what I was taught in favor of the Oxford comma. I also put punctuation outside of quotes when it is not part of the quote because i am a programmer and logic demands it.
Punctuation should be outside of the quotes, I vehemently agree with that.
"Punctuation outside the Quotes". It is logical when the punctuation is outside the quote if it is not part of the quote, i thought that was normal and should only be a comma or period anyway. "Punctuation inside the Quotes!" - he exclaimed, @sabret00the if it is part of the quote is also normal and would usually be an exclaimation or question mark - that is my understanding.
My understanding is that it's normal in the UK and not in the US. If so,this is a case where I think UK grammarians are correct.
You must also be very particular about your semi-colons.
I use the oxford comma and put the punctuation outside the quote if it isn’t part of the quote (Ex: Erin said, “My name is Erin.”. Notice the two periods.)
I’ve never encountered a situation where the Oxford comma made a sentence less clear, but omitting it always has the potential to cause confusion.
are you supposed to bring Bob (who is a DJ) and a clown? that's how the sentence with the Oxford comma treats to many people. the Oxford comma creates as much ambiguity as it resolves.
@@nicholus_h2 Well to be honest I don't see a confusion here, if I were to encounter a sentence like "Bob, a DJ and a clown" I'd assume to bring Bob, a person who has the ability to be both a Dj and a clown at the same time. With the oxford comma I can understand that its "Bob, a DJ, and a clown" so I bring 1 Bob, 1 DJ, and 1 clown. 3 completely different people
@@shwarzn- The list itself is bad though, as you can still argue that you were asked to bring two people: Bob who is a DJ and a yet unknown clown. A better list altogether might be, "a DJ, a clown and Bob," since there is little chance mistaking the meaning there.
@@ultimateoriginalgod I can't see how anyone can think either of those are wrong tbh. Just do what you want
@@shwarzn- If I wanted you to bring two people: 1. Bob (who is a DJ), and 2. a clown, using the Oxford comma, i would write "bring Bob, a DJ, and a clown." And, as you stated, you would incorrectly assume I meant to bring 3 completely different people.
So...you assume there's no confusion, but you actually proved its there. The Oxford comma has introduced just as much confusion as it cleared up.
If my first editor hates oxford commas, then there's a reason he was only the first.
XD Nicely said!
That makes no sense. If you agreed with your first editor on that and stayed with him/her, they'd still be your first editor
edit: nvm ignore me lol
@@lumina_ Then...obviously, there wasn't an agreement.
Glass of Milk hey why do I keep finding your comment?
@@lumina_ "only the first" implies that the editor wasn't the last.
My teachers hated it in high school, but I use it often ;)
I like what you've done here.
+Sasha Broadbent me, too.😉
+Sasha Broadbent
Nope. His comment had nothing to do with the video.
+Even Andy
In short sentences some writers will remove the "serial comma" because it feels unnecessary. You'll find that most situations where you use a "serial comma" you would be better off with using a ";" or splitting the sentence into or adding "()". In a school setting they prefer you not to use the serial comma because it increases sentence length. Increase in sentence length often results in sentences that convey more than one idea. Convey more than one idea makes understating the sentence a lot harder for the reader. As a result in an academic settings it's often found upon as a bad hobbit.
***** (it was just a wee joke)
Yeah, I’m a fan of the Oxford comma because it makes the items listed more parallel, hence clear, to me. It did bother one of my professors before and his argument was simply “it used up a space.” I think I’ll continue to use it.
Does anyone else see the irony in dedicating a book to both Ayn Rand and God?
Dus this mean you are a new Jezus? Around minute 3.09 there stands "Ik draag dit boek op aan mijn ouders, Ayn Rand en God." So your parents got to be Ayn Rand and God?
betekend dit dat jij een nieuwe Jezus bent? rond minuut 3.09 staat er.
"I dedicate this book to my parents, Ayn Rand and God." Dus jouw ouders
zijn Ayn Rand en God?
+Fishbiene Irony noticed
+Fishbiene Capitalist Jesus. FINALLY THE REPUBLICAN'S PRAYERS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED.
+Fishbiene no, because I'm sure there is much common ground in each of their own respective goals and desires, depending on which god you are talking about and at which point in her life Ayn Rand was.
+Fishbiene Not when they happen to be your parents, no.
+ 0
My English teachers in High School opposed it, and even marked it as a mistake and lowered my grades for using it. My teachers in classes at UNLV hated it too, but they didn't mark me down for using it. I use it because it makes my writing easier to read, parse, and understand.
+Ron Fink I experienced the opposite. I was taught not to use it, but was marked down for not using by one of my lecturers at uni. I actually find lists of three or more items easier to understand without it. "Bring Bob, the DJ, and a dog" implies for me that Bob is the DJ, and thus I'd be looking for a DJ called Bob!
@@cameii77 that is because you used the a definite article rather than an indefinite article like "a"
Your teachers should have been fired.
I see what you did there, and I totally respect that. Yet, the final comma makes my reading stumble a bit, like I find a final distraction on my way to the exit. I, personally, find it very easy to understand that "read, parse and understand" refer to the adverb "easier", but the comma makes it kinda seem "look, it makes my writing easier to read, parse and SEE, IT ALSO MAKES IT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND. DID YOU SEE IT? I MADE IT MORE THAN EVIDENT". As it's been said in the video, the personal preference has a part. I'd get rid of Oxford commas in simple lists, but would leave them in more complex sentences, like the first of this rant.
I just don't get what the point is of putting a comma before the word 'and.'
For the people from different languages suggesting their ways of doing things to be better, remember in English we have the 2 words of Read and Read when it comes to the action or completion of the action of reading a booking.... the way we tell them apart is that one is pronounced like the word lead whereas the other one is pronounced like the word lead.
I like the serial comma because if you don't use it, the last two items in a list look like they should be one entity or you don't read it right the first time because you don't pause when reading. For example: "Lisa, Jack, Angela, Henry and Grace" looks like the list should be going on because the comma should be what separates the words, not conjunctions. Also, conjunctions can be included in lists like: "Hector and April, Lou and Mary, Geoff and Carol, and Francis and Frankie are married."
That ending though. xD
+Bruce Wayne God looks very pleased.
Haha I just commented on how it proves why it’s needed. Very solid humor.
Haha. I know. Such a troll.
Funny seeing you here, are you learning grammar rules to better converse with arms dealers?
@@danzhang1412 Sshhh, you're not wrong, but I don't want everyone to know what I'm up to.
Let's eat, Grandma!
Let's eat Grandma!
Commas save lives
In some cases....
Joseph Fennell yes but the comma used is not an Oxford comma.
This doesn't seperate 2 seperate entity, there is only 1 subject.
Cyd Oliver Escobar what's the difference between comma and Oxford comma?
@@mundanest entities
I'm in support of it. The ending confused me so much without the Oxford comma lol
AJ Tomecek yet somehow you forgot to put a period.
Narasirp who the fuck uses proper sentences on a RUclips comment
Kelly G and somehow you don't get this joke.
and somehow you don't get my joke
Kelly G i get it, that's why i make that joke m8.
I've always been taught not to use the Oxford comma, but nevertheless I tend to use it because I usually take the view that it makes things clearer. I got asked in an English test once to put the commas in a piece of writing, and I was left with no idea whether they wanted me to use Oxford commas or not as their usage is such a debated issue!
It's redundant since you're using the commas in place of conjunctions. It's like saying "and and"
How to solve the problem (in Sweden)
Enumeration: "bob, a dj and a clown" (3 ppl)
To signal that bob is a dj and a clown there's one formal and one informal way.
"Bob: a dj and a clown" (formal)
"Bob - a dj and a clown" (informal)
The formal is used for clarity and will be found in science papers etc.
The informal is used for a smooth reading experience such as you expect from say a novel.
I can't imagine what would prevent the anglo-saxon world from adopting a system like this and watch the problem go away. *sees the metric system* oh
I hope you are not trying to say that there is something wrong with the metric system, are you?
I like the outro text. *"I dedicate this book to my parents, Any Rand and God."* This reminds me of Eats, Shoots, and Leaves.
Btw I'm all for the oxford comma, too.
The idea of a satiated Panda with a gun is amusing.
Maybe a better sentence might be " *I dedicate this book to my mom, my dad, Ayn Rand and God,* " since the items of the list are now all singular. Parallelism is important y'all
@@ultimateoriginalgod very true. I'd rather have the reader wonder why I mentioned my parents separately than wonder which one of them is god 😂
Here in India we follow british English and I didn't even know of the existence of the Oxford comma until watching this video. I've always been taught to never put a comma before a conjunction.
In our school, we were taught to always use the Oxford comma, even if it might be causing a problem
Btw I'm an Indian
SAME
It is more of an American thing. Even the Oxford Style Guide says *not* to use it _unless_ it is necessary to prevent ambiguity.
@@tejaskala516
Was that taught in an Indian school?
Same with me , I'm from Newfoundland Canada and I just heard of it.
Yes for Oxford Comma!
yep, yes, and yeah!
Muz
Nope, no and never.
The Oxford comma has its uses, but the Princeton comma is far more versatile.
NO !!!!!!
I didn't grow up using it but started implementing it out of necessity when listing item pairs eg
"Gin and juice, lemon and lime and rum and cola"
becomes:
"Gin and juice, lemon and lime, and rum and cola"
Or possibly with ampersands:
"Gin & juice, lemon & lime, and rum & cola"
I dont know if this is technically the best way but it read the best to my eyes and internal monologue.
I think most people keen on coherent communication would opt to use it, and for good measure, too. I love the Oxford comma (call me a commanist) for its function, and I also love it stylistically, since for me, a comma can be like a breath in a sentence, so having a list where you have a breath between each item except the last two would just sound inconsistent and add unwanted emphasis.
Like "daisies, sunflowers, tulips, and roses" as opposed to "daisies, sunflowers, tulips and roses". It might entirely depend on the reader, but at least for me, the second version both looks and sounds inconsistent and awkward because there is a visible barrier created by the comma between the first three items but not between the last two. Oxford comma just reads and looks better.
Hello. For my personal taste, the last comma is unnecessary. If a writer does not trust their audience to separate sunflowers from tulips and daisies, I think there is a bigger problem. As the languages tend to go with the simplification, my prognosis is for the Oxford comma to dissipate in the next 5-10 years or so. Maybe the serial comma will be substituted with "and also", which again, for my taste, solves the problem quite radically.
It's jarring to me. Breaks the flow of the sentence. I never use them, never see a need to use them, just write the sentence clearly as you would speak it to someone, then you never need oxford commas
I always use Oxford comma because I feel that it's more "fair" to the words. I list things and I want every single one of them accompanied by a punctuation mark. I don't want any of the words to be lonely.
I generally avoid it but sometimes notice that it would be useful. Grammar is basically just about making your writing easily understandable for your readers. Good grammar is just good manners. :-)
I am an English Undergrad at university and I support the Oxford comma. It makes sense to me. Solves more problems than it causes. My school didn’t teach it but I think I started using it at university when I found out about it.
I always use oxford commas when listing things. It sounds more natural in pronunciation. If Bob is a DJ and a clown then I am less likely to pause between those two things. If I were listing "Bob, a DJ, and a clown" I would likely pause while saying each item on the list.
To solve the problem I would probably use a dash or reword the sentence. Perhaps "Bob, a clowning DJ"
My 4th grade writing teacher forced us to use the oxford comma in all cases. She also asked for clarity on situations that would have been more clear without that comma. I learned rather young that it needs to be chosen based on the content of the sentence and not for aesthetic purposes. Sadly I never had a teacher who agreed with me on that point.
I'm in the pro-Oxford Comma category, thank you!
I always instinctively and reflexively use this comma. For example, we have conventions already that point out different clauses in a sentence so that the idea can be grasped easily. If we want to say that ninjas, pirates, and vikings, who included among their number both old and young ages, then we'd simply say "Ninjas, pirates, and vikings, both old and young". If we meant to extend to old and young people who were not those first three entities, then we'd say "Ninjas, pirates, vikings, and others both old and young." If all of them were both old and young then you'd simply alter it like this "Ninjas, pirates, and vikings, all both old and young". You don't have to make a sentence so poorly that it's entire meaning hinges on a comma. If you wanted to specify one of those categories, then you'd say "Ninjas, pirates, and vikings both old and young." It's not that difficult. And in this case you are without reasonable ambiguity. Look further into it and it is even more apparent that the "Sensible Comma" is needed to avoid confusions. What if it had read "Ninjas, pirates and vikings both old and young"? Then clearly you are emphasizing that pirates and vikings had both old and young instances.
The Oxford comma - Use it. Love it.
yep, yes, and yeah!
Screw it.
I was never taught to use, or not use the oxford comma. apparently I have been using it without knowing for a long time. The reason I used it was 1: It clears confusion. And 2: If I was reading aloud I would have naturally placed a small pause in the location of said comma.
Why are you writing the list in an order that makes the Oxford comma necessary in the first place?
0:54 it may not be as recommended, but in the uk I’ve never seen anyone not use the Oxford comma.
Just ran into a problem ordering doughnuts. The store's website lists a variety of flavors they can drizzle on them,: chocolate, caramel, lemon, raspberry & blackberry. I assumed that it was a "raspberry & blackberry" flavored drizzle, rather than two separate drizzles. A) those flavors are commonly combined, B) they used and ampersand rather than the word 'and', which I often equate to a "+", C) I was raised using the Oxford comma.
When it comes to lists, there should be a comma between every unique item on the list.
Joseph Fry 100% agree
I'm German and wrote a thesis in English. I really envy the English language for that comma. Even without knowing of its existents, the related problem occurred to me many times when writing German texts.
It is spelt "existence". I expect you are German and English is not your first language, so I cannot hold you liable for spelling mistakes. Still, you clicked on a video that was about English language rules, so you have to expect someone would correct you.
The award for the most unnecessary comment goes to:@@jessxkirby38
It actually surprises me that there is anything about English that is superior compared to German. The way Germans talk, German is a god tier language that does everything better than other languages. Why do Germans say this? Is it true that German is the most comprehensive language? I’ve heard German is more precise, clear, direct, and flexible. The titular saying with regard to the German language is a true one. When people say, “The Germans have a word for that”, this is not an exaggeration; the German language is almost endlessly expandable and its vocabulary is almost infinitely flexible, with new words being able to be created spontaneously just by combining two German nouns together.
@@procatist8624 You are the first runner-up, congratulations!
@@ThinWhiteLuke Whilst you are not wrong, punctuation and lexicology are different parts of any given language. While German is more flexible in terms of making new words from the existing ones, English may be richer in some other things. Also, it is good to keep in mind that German and English belong to different language groups, meaning they are not really comparable from a linguistics point of view. I'm not an accomplished linguist myself, those are just my thoughts as a person who's interested in languages.
The contra of "Bob, a DJ (descriptive), and a puppy" can be avoided without any additional info, simply by adhering to conversational standards: Dont bring up information when it's not necessary. You want a list of ppl to bring? List them, and them only. Noone needs to know hes a DJ. And if its important enough, put it in a separate sentence. "Bob and a puppy. Bob will be the DJ."
Of course, Ayn Rand and God both being people you admire would also be a bit odd.
I take it Ayn Rand didn't believe in God?
The way you were raised has a clear impact on this: the country you're from, the people who surround you. Personaly though, I think it's crazy how the video said America is one of the bigger users. One time this girl told me she knew I was foreign not because of an accent, but because of my constant (and, in her opinion, kinda unecessary) use of commas.
Yes, my native language is portuguese and we use comas as much as it seems necessary and it always made me confused because my teacher once told me that americans don't use it that often. Now that I noticed it is not weird and that it is truly recognized I'm going to start using more comas in my texts.
We never use Oxford comma in Portuguese (at least, I never ever heard/saw it). Which is funny, because usually it's taught American English. And I never saw it in English.
In Portuguese, we some "rules" to avoid that confusion, even if it requires some repetition.
We would say "Bring Bob, that is a DJ, and a clown". When we the verb requires preposition, sometimes we can repeate it, like: "Give the gift to Bob, to a DJ and to a clown".
You know, if Bob was really a Dj, the person could’ve just texted like this:
‘Bring Bob (a DJ) and a puppy
All my hs teachers mark me wrong when I use this and I cringe knowing that I’m technically in the right
The trick is to always consider the use of a comma to be part of a list when ever it is not being used as a clarification pause, or the bridging of correlative statements.
(Bracketed sentences work perfectly well as qualifiers, and for delivering superfluous clarifications.)
I'm all for the Oxford Comma
I use the Oxford comma because I think typically it solves more problems than it creates. If I were using the list in the video I would write “Bob, a DJ, and a clown” if I meant 3 separate people and “Bob (a DJ) and a clown” if I meant 2. If Bob is both a DJ and a clown I’d say “Bob, who is a DJ and a clown”. If the comma itself (or lack thereof) could still be ambiguous I would put more context for the sake of clarity. I’m very much pro-Oxford comma though.
GO SERIAL COMMA!!!
yep, yes, and yeah!
+that_pac12 I agree.
The serial comma, also called oxford comma, looks better, makes more sense, and prevents confusion.
cimmik I see what you did there.
I actually didn’t use the Oxford comma when I started writing a book until I started reading some story excerpts that uses it.
Thanks for the video. As English is not my mother tongue, I didn’t know that such problem exists. It never occurred to me that:
“Bob, a DJ and a clown” can mean that Bob is both those things.
But I wonder, why don’t you use for example a rule, like in Slavic languages:
The Meaning “Bob is ...” would be written down like “Bob - a DJ and a clown” because it is a definition.
Or If you want to say:
“My parents are Ayn Rand and God”, you would be writing “My parents: Ayn Rand and God”
You can. It's people's poor grammar skills make the comma a substitute for other punctuation. I personally advocate most widespread use of all variants of colons, dashes and brackets currently underutilized. A good rule of thumb for writing a good list is structure matters more that punctuation, though you still might have to be a mind reader for bad sentences lol.
I was brought up in the east coast USA where absolutely we were taught "no comma!" I was in my thirties when I finally bucked the local trend and began using it, to my Chicago-based editor's approval.
I'm from ireland and when I heard it I immediately thought that she had to bring three different people and I don't understand the confusion. I can't understand how people would interpret it differently
If they don't understand context they might get it wrong, but I don't see how that should be a problem for the rest of us.
It's the written form which is problematic, not the spoken form. If in the spoken form the pause between each word is the same, you can infer there are three people; but if there were a longer pause between "Bob" and "a DJ and a clown," you would instead infer that the latter pair describe Bob. Now imagine that the presence of a comma adds a slightly longer pause between words than where a comma is absent. This makes you "hear" the latter case when reading.
so I'm from a non-english speaking country and here the oxford comma was never up to discussion, but that didn't stop me from using it in a dictation because the added comma contributes so much to the flow of a sentence when read in your mind. It was my only mistake, yet to me it was a rebellion against grammar for a more intuitive, heartfelt style of writing.
7th grade was wild.
I really don't get why this is confusing, maybe because I'm not an English native speaker but seriously, if Bob is a dj you could just say "Bring bob the dj and a clown" the other way sounds like there are 3 different people.
And the end bit sounds like the dedication is for 4 people which are mum, dad, any rand and God.
If you wanna imply your parents are Ayn Rand and God you just don't put the comma after the word parents.
Maybe that's not how it works in _your_ native language, but it's perfectly valid in English.
Anastas1786 yes I know, what I meant to me it isn't confusing as may be for someone else!
Seems you get the language better than most English speakers here.... or maybe it's just common sense
Or you know:
"Bring Bob (a DJ) and a clown." Who would EVER seriously write "Bring Bob, a DJ and a clown," when they weren't referring to separate entities?
Nobody writes like that in real life.
Thank you
In Chinese, instead of using commas (，) to separate parts of a list, we use a different punctuation mark. Used like this: Bring Bob、a DJ and a clown. We don't really use the oxford comma as the and or (和) is already good enough.
Why would you want to bring a clown to a party anyway?
To scare children.
Bramble451
Can I bring children to scare the clowns out?
My problem with this comma is actually how I was taught to use it. My teacher had told me to only use it when the three items were all different, but that only confused me. I thought of different as in the categorical similarities of the items. But it is much easier to understand that you should separate with the comma what you want to imply as being separate.
This is interesting. But I got here looking for the song, "Oxford comma"
cody blablabla fuck yeah vampire weekend
who gives a f about an oxford comma?
I've seen those English dramas too
Excellent video, and don’t forget the necessity of putting a comma between adjectives.
I think not using the serial comma is a lot more annoying than without. O _o It just looks wrong, on top of being confusing. Canadian. Some of us use it, most of us don't. Drives me insane.
in Chinese, " 、(顿号)" is used when expressing separate entities. e.g. " my parents 、Emma and Jack" always means three separate individuals.
That's how it is for everyone except Americans. I wonder why... They really are a "special" bunch
I love the Oxford comma. I've been using it since elementary school.
You use a comma to denote a pause if you were reading your text out loud. If I’m reading off a list of three or more things, I invariably do find myself pausing before the “and” that comes before the last item in the list. So I am a firm supporter of the Oxford comma👍
I'm so happy they included South Africa
We were actually taught an ingenious solution at school. If you mean one person, you write "Bring Bob, DJ and clown", where the additional clause highlights different criteria/professions. However, "Bring Bob, 'a' DJ and 'a' clown" indicates that they are three separate entities, and thus require introductory articles. The focus shifts on the article than the comma. It's present in the Wren and Martin.
For the last part, to avoid confusion couldn't you state the adjective before the noun? Everyone had a great time, young and old Ninjas, Pirates, Vikings, etc...
I'm not very good at English....
As others have said, there are times when the Oxford comma is needed for clarity, or just to more naturally mimic speech. Since one should always be consistent within a written work as to whether or not one uses it, it can be concluded that the Oxford comma should therefore always be used. HOWEVER, one should always reread what one writes, anyway. Keep an eye out... if the use of the Oxford comma makes it appear to be part of a parenthetical phrase rather than a separation of list items, simply rewrite the sentence to avoid ambiguity. Done! No further debate needed.
We should also add a punctuation mark for taking an audible rest or pause, as the comma does that, but also effects the meaning of the sentence
Use a dash if using the Oxford comma would confuse those not used to it though. Say ´Bob - a DJ and a clown' if Bob is the DJ and the clown. If you say 'Bob, a DJ and a clown' some will think you mean 2 (Bob being the DJ and someone else being the clown) or 3 people even though, gramatically, you mean one person.
She did bring a clown, which was herself thinking Bob was a DJ
I am from Brazil and it is almost impossible to imagine the Portuguese language without "Oxford commas". The comma in my language has several usage rules. It is used to isolate toponyms, separate coordinated clauses free of connectives that connect them (asyndetic), separate clauses initiated by adversative, alternative, conclusive or explanatory conjunctions, isolate explanatory expressions, separate appositions, and vocatives in a sentence, separate an anticipated or interspersed adverbial adjunct between the speech, isolate an anticipated pleonastic complement to the verb, indicating the suppression of an implied verb in a sentence (ellipse), separate adverbial clauses when they precede the main clause, but on the other hand it should not be used to separate terms that from a syntactical point of view directly establish a connection between themselves, between the verb and its complements, etc. Some people can find it tricky to master comma usage in Portuguese. As a non-native speaker of English, I try to avoid commas. I used many above and probably some of them are misplaced.
Portuguese does *not* follow the oxford comma.
(Museu da Língua Portuguesa, Vírgula [ , ])
Elementos coordenados em enumerações que apresentam a mesma função sintática, quando não são separados pelas conjunções e, ou, nem, são separados por vírgulas. Por exemplo:
- João, Vitória e Ana Maria foram promovidos pelo diretor da transportadora.
- Vou comprar farinha, manteiga, ovos, leite, canela e açúcar para fazer biscoitos.
@@PY4004SWL Amapá, Piauí, Alagoas, Rondônia" "e Ceará.
O lugar em destaque é onde a virgula serial e inserida. A ligua Portuguesa, pelos menos no Brasil, não tem a tradição de adicionar essa virgula.
Toda lingua tem a tradição de colocar virgulas pra seperar items de uma lista, mas o portugues e outras liguas mantem que a virgula final não é necessaria.
That's why in Spanish the comma to separate elements is practically always used (especially before "y" and "además"), most for esthetic purposes, and to difference all the separate elements.
¿De qué hablas? Antes de “y” no suele ponerse coma. Compara las frases: “Zapatos, vestidos y todo tipo de prendas” ✅ vs. “Zapatos, vestidos, y todo tipo de prendas”, que no está mal, pero es menos adecuada. Sí se puede usar coma (y se recomienda) en casos como el siguiente: “Había [yo] terminado el trabajo, y cuando fui a entregárselo…”. En este ejemplo no se están listando entidades análogas como en el ejemplo de "Ben, a DJ and a clown". Si no fuera por la coma, el lector podría pensar que se trata de una serie de cosas terminadas, la primera de ellas “el trabajo”. El supuesto lector entendería: “Había terminado el trabajo y [algo más]”. Por supuesto que se daría cuenta de su error enseguida, pero de todos modos, la falta de la coma habría entorpecido la lectura y es algo que puede fácilmente evitarse.
cuando se enumeran o los listan cosas se debe evitar poner delante de y una coma
I was raised in a country that doesn't use English as it's first language, and the language we do use doesn't use Oxford commas, but because I use the internet every day, and thus read a lot of English, I have begun prefering to use Oxford commas. It was probably also because one of my English teachers once mentioned to always put a comma before "and", and I could never remember if that rule was for English, or for my native language, so I did it for both.
I personally prefer it because if it's not used, I group it like this:
(one), (two and three)
or:
(one and two), (two and three), ...
There are also a variety of other writing rules that I never learned in school, but that I lrarned from seeing other people do it.
One time when I was young my teacher said to never put a comma before 'and' and I was so confused cause I thought it was fine and I'm still annoyed at her cause using an Oxford comma has been so useful
in Indonesia, we were taught to use the oxford comma as a standardised writing. I was once get confused when I read some sentences in my English textbook that didn't use the oxford comma, just like the example written in the video. I thought it was a typo but it turns out there's a debate about commas out there 🙄
0:07 Let me fix that for you:
"Bring Bob, *who is* a DJ and a clown"
Use the comma!
It’s one character space, or less (depending on the font you use),
Who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma?
I've seen those English dramas too,
They're cruel!
People, which can hadle the pen...
Vampire Weekend. Fuck ya.
Grammar is suppose to help make language clearer. If the Oxford comma or lack of makes a sentence confusing, then rewrite the sentence to avoid both. For example, for the DJ, Bob, and the Dog. I would just break it up into three bullet points or have them numbered. Can you get: 1. A DJ. 2. Bob. 3. A Puppy. Or, if you want them all in one sentence, then maybe write it as "Let's get (1) Bob, (2) the DJ, and (3) a puppy. You can remove the comma in this case and it will still work. Point is, while my method isn't the best, it is harder for the person on the other end to not understand what you are saying.
I’m a big fan of the Oxford comma. I find it clear and useful.
My colleagues at work disagree and in fact have chastised me for using it - demanding I remove it from my writing
Was raised without even being told it was an option, and that you should never put a comma before an "and". There are far fewer places where the Oxford comma is ambiguous than where it's useful, so I've adopted it, despite what I was originally taught. Though I do wish more people would think of the option of simply rearranging list items.
Video: To use, or not to use?.
Comments section: *YES*
Did anyone else notice Bob picking his nose? It was really funny and a creative humor attempt by the animator!
I saw thing that said: "I dedicate this book to my parents, Ayn Rand and God" at the end and without even thinking I was automatically like, *"You forgot the comma"*
In the examples of confusion from USING the oxford comma, i don't see how it was actually the comma that caused the confusion, it seems it would be confusing with, and without the comma.
At the beginning when the sentence was 'Please bring Bob, a DJ and a clown', I thought the woman was asked to bring the DJ and a clown for Bob. Anyone else read it like that?
No, but for the sentence to mean that you would have to ommit the comma, so it would read 'please bring Bob a DJ and a clown'.
Umm, i still use the comma, it can change the way people say the thing that they are reading in their heads, making it mean something different.
(EDIT)I already have a habit of using the comma as you can see, and i didnt even notice...
In a sense, grammar rules (e.g. punctuation) are _literally_instructions on how to recreate spoken language from written language. And like it or not, commas are the go-to punctuation mark used to express a short pause between two words.
I didn't even know there was a debate on it.
We use commas before any extra clauses with additional information, you see (I just did, in fact). We do so whether there is a conjunction starting the additional clause or not, so I've never understood why there is even a debate. When we are describing someone in detail (not making a list) we often say something like, "She looked through her smudged, cracked, dented sunglasses." Taking away the final comma would just be ridiculous: "...smudged, cracked dented glasses." The serial comma serves the same function as that comma in my example. So I can't justify not using it. When one does not use the serial comma and then accidental confusion is caused, the solution is to use parentheses to specify. But isn't that far more work than simply using the serial comma?! Why would we do more work? And in the rare cases where a serial comma might cause confusion (the video's given example seems rather flimsy), we would just use parentheses for clarification: "Bring Bob (a DJ) and a clown." But that happens so rarely, that it is hardly a reason to stop using serial commas.
Everyone here is supporting meanwhile I'm used to things without the Oxford comma and the Oxford Comma only makes me confused LOL
In the UK, I was never taught about the oxford comma, but, since being online, I have been told off so many times for not using it so I have always been confused. Thank you!
En Español, usar una coma antes de la conjunción "y" cuenta como error gramatical. Tampoco es correcto iniciar una oración con ésta.
Wow, I almost understand that.
I've always been told it was needed. Never thought of ditching it
The Oxford comma is widely considered incorrect grammar in the UK. In my own opinion, I think the comma itself is not necessarily where the confusion comes from - it's the way a sentence is built and the key words used instead.
If you want to ask someone to bring three separate people, you would say "bring Bob, a DJ and a clown". In this sentence, by using 'a' before 'DJ' and 'clown', you are separating the clauses and implying that Bob, the DJ and the clown are separate people.
A more confusing sentence would be: "bring Bob, the DJ and a clown". This could imply that Bob is the DJ or that they are both different people. The clown would be considered a separate person in this sentence either way.
If you say: "bring Bob, the DJ and clown", this would heavily imply that Bob is both the DJ and the clown.
If you say: "bring Bob, the DJ and the clown", this would again imply that all three are different people. By using 'the' before both the DJ and the clown, you have separated all three clauses again (Bob, DJ and clown).
If you want to be super clear that all three people are separate people, I would consider either rearranging the sentence or by using more verbs: "can you pick up Bob, collect the DJ and bring the clown".
If you want to explain that Bob is a DJ and a clown as clearly as possible, you you would usually use a hyphen, a semi colon or use brackets, such as: "bring Bob (the DJ and clown)".
If you would still like to use a comma in your sentence if explaining that Bob is both a DJ and a clown, a simple noun would do the trick: "bring Bob, he's a DJ and a clown".
I think it's just about structuring your sentences to be as clear as possible and to do that you need to consider the words you use in conjunction with your punctuation - they both go hand in hand.
+spookyboo Generally when you have more than two words per separate person/object, you use a semicolon.
In Italian Primary Schools , many years ago, I have been thought that you should never use the comma before the conjunction "and" because it would mean saying two times "and" or putting two commas together (since they have the same function: separating words), of course with the exception of parenthetical clauses ( es: I'm hungry,of course, and thirsty). But growing up and facing more complex texts to write, I realised that some time you need it.
2:20 "old and young" aren't the last two items in the list; they are descriptors of the already completed list. You wouldn't say "people, old, and young"; you'd say "people old and young" because you're describing the people, not listing three separate groups. A comma there would be completely unnecessary, confusing, and not an Oxford comma at all.
The point is that without the comma, it is confusing whether you are describing the listed people or if "old and young" are part of the list.
the point is that as long as the oxford comma is optional, we can never truly know what was meant. there's no debating, no arguing, nothing. the only way to know if the writer meant "old and young" as in describing the previous people or as in introducing two new groups is to ask the writer himself.
No, you missed the point, as Estrel and Mariam pointed out.
As a person for whom English is not their mother tongue, the Oxford comma rule seems quite confusing. For the lists, we use "and" only, without a comma before the final element of the list (hence, no Oxford comma). To introduce the quality of an object we've mentioned before, we use dashes. It's look like "Bring Bob - a DJ and a puppy" if Bob is both; and "Bring Bob, a DJ and a puppy" if those are three separate things. I guess, it'll remain the eternal struggle, just like the imperial system of units.
You forgot one point: The comma basically represents an unspoken and/or/nor, thus a comma and a conjunction should be mutually exclusive.
I doubt the casual reader sees it that way. For example, I doubt you read "and/or/nor" into the comma in this sentence. Granted and/or/nor commas do have multiple uses and/or/nor this can be confusing since most other punctuation marks only have one primary use. Commas actually serve to indicate pause.
In the above sentence, if I wrote it as, "Granted commas do have multiple uses," you might at first think "granted" was an adjective describing commas, not a separate idea. The comma could possibly be replaced with "but," but this produces a lengthy, exhausting sentence when read aloud. The comma allows the reader to take a break, collect his thoughts, and launch into the main idea of the sentence from a stronger position. It is clear to everyone where the sentence begins.
Now I realize you're only referring to commas in lists, but they function pretty well the same. Obviously, if I removed the comma in my previous sentence, it would be grammatically incorrect. We are taught to place a comma between two separate but connected ideas when they have different subjects. The comma works in tandem with the conjunction "but"; maintaining that commas can imply conjunctions fails in this case because the comma is necessary to indicate a longer pause.
there are some languages like mandarin chinese that at least historically didnt make use of punctuation but they have since adopted it because of how useful it is in english however i dont think that mandarin employs the oxford comma but as you can see in this paragraph more punctuation is a good thing i suppose if you werent raised on the oxford comma then you could do fine without it but try extrapolating that to other forms of punctuation and see how well you do those of us who were raised on that comma have a hard time seeing printed writing without it although it isnt quite as difficult as reading this paragraph must be because at least it is more common but it still looks incorrect to us
I'm not trying to be snarky or anything; I just wanted to illustrate why your statement doesn't tell the whole story. It isn't untrue, but it only really applies if you were taught not to use the Oxford comma in the first place.
I used to always use an Oxford Comma when I was in school even before I knew it was an actual grammatical device. Not all of my teachers were that keen on using it as some saw it as being clumsy.
The idea that a comma should never precede the word 'and' was a rule that was followed with such stubborn adherence and I couldn't get my head around it. It wasn't until I progressed to top set English that my teacher actually encouraged the use of the comma.
The "a" gave the whole away-she thought "Bob, a DJ and [-a-] clown"
We always use it in Canada. "A green, red and yellow snake" (total of two snakes, one that's green and the other is a mix of yellow and green) and "A green, red, and yellow snake" (total of three snakes, one of each colour). It helps avoid mistakes when interpreting.
What about one snake that's all three colors???