Oxford commas are the galoshes of grammar: now and again, important to keep away from a multitude but in no way fashionable. Mandating the Oxford comma is inimical to proper writing. Just as we omit unnecessary phrases, so must we excise extra punctuation.
Consider a current example circulating online: a younger lady argues for the Oxford comma, breaking down the word, “I thanked my parents, Batman, and Superman.” She factors out that putting off the comma after “Batman” should alternate the meaning to suggest that Batman and Superman are the writer’s parents instead of extra people being thanked. Rather than proving the need for requiring the Oxford comma, however, this case illuminates its risks.
Although the instance’s ridiculous nature makes it shinier, it is also well-known shows that context frequently moots the want for the Oxford comma. In this situation, context would probably display the word changed into no longer intended to claim superhero lineage.
Furthermore, the example suggests how using the Oxford comma encourages lazy writing. Relying on the Oxford comma for listing-making may be clarifying. However, it often interferes with precise composition. Assuming the instance word is funny, the humor is based on the dichotomy between thanking one’s parents and thanking a pair of fictitious superheroes. However, as presently constructed, the wording weakens this, regardless of whether or not the Oxford comma is covered.
Simply rearranging the list to “I thanked Batman, Superman, and my dad and mom” eliminates the want to apply the Oxford comma. It additionally locations the contradiction on the quiet of the word rather than the center, thereby giving it extra effect.
If the author nevertheless needed to hold filial piety at the fore, there’s a ramification of approaches to try this, highlighting the evaluation with the conclusion thanks to superheroes. The example might be changed to “I thanked my dad and mom — and Batman and Superman” or “I thanked my mother and father. I additionally thanked Batman and Superman.”
Although those draw the phrase out, they use the additional length to emphasize the assessment between the thanked events. Far from demonstrating the necessity of the Oxford comma, this example suggests it affords clarity in list-making at the rate of elegant and effective writing.
The Oxford Comma Clutters Writing
Mandatory, that’s to mention mindless, use of the Oxford comma also litters writing with muddle. Each unnecessary comma is an outgrowth. In the word “Faith, desire and love continue to be,” appending a comma after “hope” might no longer clarify anything, but it would waste space and interrupt the drift of a beautiful passage.
In brief, the Oxford comma is regularly superfluous and a crutch for terrible writing, but it has many partisans who want to pressure it on all people. Why?
I doubt that many advocates for a mandatory Oxford comma are stressed over the parentage of the hypothetical individual who expressed gratitude to Batman and Superman. Rather, they’re angry at grading some other what-I-did-this-summer essay that consists of something like, “Then I went swimming at the lake with my brothers, Bill and Ted.” The ambiguity (Are Bill and Ted the scholar’s brothers or extra contributors to the party?) annoys the trainer reading the adventure.
Many editors, lawyers, and corporate types can also have similar inflammation while coping with subordinates who can’t write clearly. As for the teacher above, requiring the Oxford comma is a way to set up simple requirements for written precision. However, mandating the Oxford comma additionally makes terrible writing obligatory. Specific fields and criminal reports might locate standardization as extra vital than beauty. However, they’re the exception.
Rules Hamper Good Writing
Understandably, the ones tasked with teaching and enhancing terrible writers want a rule. And policies may additionally help suffering writers keep away from egregious mistakes. But useless rules will bog down the development of accurate writers. Grammatical approaches are trying to approximate the practices of the coolest writer. However, they may be inadequate to supply appropriate writing, and their legalistic application can also inhibit true reports.
The debate over the Oxford comma thus recreates, albeit with much lower stakes, a historical problem of rule-based structures, regulation, and ethics. Having a sensible ruler who can decide each case by justice is excellent. However, such rulers are rare and can’t be everywhere after they exist. The law (at great) tries to articulate an approximation of what’s just, but it can’t do so for all particulars. It will similarly require expertise to interpret and apply in every circumstance.
Furthermore, the fee of the rule of law no longer makes every proposed law valuable. Some laws do not approximate justice, and imposing others can do extra harm than the top. Thus, even the excellent gadget of laws will once in a while dictate unjust effects — how a lot of discretion judges need to have in such cases is a sizable question, as that discretion includes the capacity to boom injustice — but the practical opportunity to the rule of thumb of law is in all likelihood worse.
These perennial troubles of political philosophy can not be solved as such due to the fact human nature can not be solved. Nor does brooding about them resolve the tons smaller question of the Oxford comma. However, considering the price and policies’ barriers on a grand scale may offer a framework for the current grammatical debate. The popular of desirable writing is not adherence to grammatical regulations. Rather, the best author is the standard.
Therefore, suitable writers will no longer obey the mandates of self-appointed grammar commissars. Rather, they’ll strive for “each word and sentence this is proper” where “every word is at home.” Every comma is just too; because of this, best using them as essential.