Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Oxford commas
62 views
Skip to first unread message
Peter Brooks
Oct 14, 2012, 8:19:37 PM10/14/12
to
Oxford commas appear in the news:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9607794/Owen-Paterson-declares-war-on-the-Oxford-comma.html
It seems to me that they're a reasonable concern for an Environment
Secretary, even if they're not quite so relevant to food and rural
affairs.
Sentences with both an 'and' and a 'but' have been around for some
time. Here's an example: '1698 Christ Exalted 63 Hath not the Potter
power over the Clay, of the same lump to make a hundred Chamber-pots
and but five drinking Vessels?' [OED].
I think that the potter could have made a hundred drinking vessels and
five chamber-pots instead and had clay to spare for feet.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9607794/Owen-Paterson-declares-war-on-the-Oxford-comma.html
It seems to me that they're a reasonable concern for an Environment
Secretary, even if they're not quite so relevant to food and rural
affairs.
Sentences with both an 'and' and a 'but' have been around for some
time. Here's an example: '1698 Christ Exalted 63 Hath not the Potter
power over the Clay, of the same lump to make a hundred Chamber-pots
and but five drinking Vessels?' [OED].
I think that the potter could have made a hundred drinking vessels and
five chamber-pots instead and had clay to spare for feet.
Mark Brader
Oct 15, 2012, 12:36:19 AM10/15/12
to
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9607794/Owen-Paterson-declares-war-on-the-Oxford-comma.html>:
| Other commands applied to brackets -- to be avoided at all times --
| and dashes, the use of which are to be limited.
Urk.
| Lynne Truss, the author of the grammar guide Eats, Shoots and Leaves
| -- the title of which could perhaps benefit from an Oxford comma --
| said: "There are people who embrace the Oxford comma and people
| who don't and I'll just say this: never get between these people
| when drink has been taken."
And that's about that, then.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto, m...@vex.net
A century from now people will salute Cole Porter, Lerner and
Lowe, Rodgers and Hammerstein, and Andrew Lloyd Webber, all in
one basket. I wonder how Bach would have felt to know that
the bizarre and futuristic music of Beethoven and Brahms would
be lumped in with his? -- Guy Steele
| Other commands applied to brackets -- to be avoided at all times --
| and dashes, the use of which are to be limited.
Urk.
| Lynne Truss, the author of the grammar guide Eats, Shoots and Leaves
| -- the title of which could perhaps benefit from an Oxford comma --
| said: "There are people who embrace the Oxford comma and people
| who don't and I'll just say this: never get between these people
| when drink has been taken."
And that's about that, then.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto, m...@vex.net
A century from now people will salute Cole Porter, Lerner and
Lowe, Rodgers and Hammerstein, and Andrew Lloyd Webber, all in
one basket. I wonder how Bach would have felt to know that
the bizarre and futuristic music of Beethoven and Brahms would
be lumped in with his? -- Guy Steele
Guy Barry
Oct 15, 2012, 2:53:05 AM10/15/12
to
"Peter Brooks" wrote in message
news:868b9057-8891-4498...@j12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> Oxford commas appear in the news:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9607794/Owen-Paterson-declares-war-on-the-Oxford-comma.html
> It seems to me that they're a reasonable concern for an Environment
> Secretary, even if they're not quite so relevant to food and rural
> affairs.
Rural Affairs", not "Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural
Affairs". (What happened to "the" before "Environment", though? There used
to be one in the department's official title.)
I tend to take a pragmatic attitude to the so-called "Oxford comma"; I
generally omit it, but will insert one if it's needed to aid clarity or
avoid ambiguity. I don't see why there has to be a hard-and-fast rule.
--
Guy Barry
Mark Brader
Oct 15, 2012, 5:50:56 PM10/15/12
to
Guy Barry:
--
Mark Brader "Without nuclear weapons we will be nothing
Toronto more than a rich, powerful Canada...."
m...@vex.net -- A Walk in the Woods, by Lee Blessing
> I tend to take a pragmatic attitude to the so-called "Oxford comma"; I
> generally omit it, but will insert one if it's needed to aid clarity or
> avoid ambiguity. I don't see why there has to be a hard-and-fast rule.
I think a pragmatic attitude on this requires having a "hard-and-fast rule".
> generally omit it, but will insert one if it's needed to aid clarity or
> avoid ambiguity. I don't see why there has to be a hard-and-fast rule.
--
Mark Brader "Without nuclear weapons we will be nothing
Toronto more than a rich, powerful Canada...."
m...@vex.net -- A Walk in the Woods, by Lee Blessing
Guy Barry
Oct 16, 2012, 5:30:05 AM10/16/12
to
> "Mark Brader" wrote in message
> news:wdednVg3lujdGOHN...@vex.net...
> Guy Barry:
> > I tend to take a pragmatic attitude to the so-called "Oxford comma"; I
> > generally omit it, but will insert one if it's needed to aid clarity or
> > avoid ambiguity. I don't see why there has to be a hard-and-fast rule.
> I think a pragmatic attitude on this requires having a "hard-and-fast
> rule".
Today I bought an apple, an orange and a banana.
and here's one where I would:
The former County of Avon was replaced by the authorities of Bristol, South
Gloucestershire, North Somerset, and Bath and North East Somerset.
Adding a comma to the first would look ridiculously fussy in my opinion.
Omitting it from the second would cause ambiguity. Why does the same rule
need to be applied to both?
--
Guy Barry
Eric Walker
Oct 16, 2012, 6:39:59 AM10/16/12
to
subject matter. Often, the lack of some mark, such as a comma, needs to
convey as much import as its presence does in other castings.
The Socialist party's many aims include an early end of the
dictatorship of Generalissimo Francisco Franco, the acceptance of a
period of constitutional monarchy until the Spanish people can freely
vote their own constitutional future and sweeping fiscal, agricultural
and educational reforms.
That muddle clarifies with the insertion of the wanted serial comma after
"future"; without it, the reforms seem part of what the Spanish people
will vote on, as opposed to a third aim. (And, of course, there is also
a comma wanted after "agricultural".)
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Mark Brader
Oct 16, 2012, 11:51:51 AM10/16/12
to
Guy Barry:
> > > I tend to take a pragmatic attitude to the so-called "Oxford comma"; I
> > > generally omit it, but will insert one if it's needed to aid clarity or
> > > avoid ambiguity. I don't see why there has to be a hard-and-fast rule.
Mark Brader:
> > > I tend to take a pragmatic attitude to the so-called "Oxford comma"; I
> > > generally omit it, but will insert one if it's needed to aid clarity or
> > > avoid ambiguity. I don't see why there has to be a hard-and-fast rule.
> > I think a pragmatic attitude on this requires having a "hard-and-fast
> > rule".
Guy Barry:
> > rule".
> Why? Here's an example where I wouldn't use the "Oxford comma":
(Could we call it the serial comma, please? "Oxford comma" makes it
sound as if nobody else uses it.)
> Today I bought an apple, an orange and a banana.
was punctuated in that evil way, I'd be inclined to want to figure out
why "an orange and a banana" was being placed in apposition to "an apple".
--
Mark Brader | "On a word boundary, Luke, don't just hack at it...
Toronto | The bytesaber is the ceremonial weapon of the Red-Eye
m...@vex.net | Knight. It is used to trim offensive lines of code.
| Handwaving won't get you anywhere. Attune yourself
| with the Source." -- Tarr / Hastings / Raymond
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Mike L
Oct 16, 2012, 3:59:00 PM10/16/12
to
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:51:51 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>Guy Barry:
>> > > I tend to take a pragmatic attitude to the so-called "Oxford comma"; I
>> > > generally omit it, but will insert one if it's needed to aid clarity or
>> > > avoid ambiguity. I don't see why there has to be a hard-and-fast rule.
>
>Mark Brader:
>> > I think a pragmatic attitude on this requires having a "hard-and-fast
>> > rule".
>
>Guy Barry:
>> Why? Here's an example where I wouldn't use the "Oxford comma":
>
>(Could we call it the serial comma, please? "Oxford comma" makes it
>sound as if nobody else uses it.)
>
>> Today I bought an apple, an orange and a banana.
>
>If I hadn't been forced to read large amounts of other material that
>was punctuated in that evil way, I'd be inclined to want to figure out
>why "an orange and a banana" was being placed in apposition to "an apple".
As you said or implied above, a hard and fast rule would make for
>Guy Barry:
>> > > I tend to take a pragmatic attitude to the so-called "Oxford comma"; I
>> > > generally omit it, but will insert one if it's needed to aid clarity or
>> > > avoid ambiguity. I don't see why there has to be a hard-and-fast rule.
>
>Mark Brader:
>> > I think a pragmatic attitude on this requires having a "hard-and-fast
>> > rule".
>
>Guy Barry:
>> Why? Here's an example where I wouldn't use the "Oxford comma":
>
>(Could we call it the serial comma, please? "Oxford comma" makes it
>sound as if nobody else uses it.)
>
>> Today I bought an apple, an orange and a banana.
>
>If I hadn't been forced to read large amounts of other material that
>was punctuated in that evil way, I'd be inclined to want to figure out
>why "an orange and a banana" was being placed in apposition to "an apple".
clarity. (There must be contrary cases, but that's life.)
--
Mike.
Joy Beeson
Oct 17, 2012, 12:27:49 AM10/17/12
to
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:30:05 +0100, "Guy Barry"
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> > I think a pragmatic attitude on this requires having a "hard-and-fast
> > rule".
>
> Why?
than words, to communicate that one is referring to three things,
rather than using one simple term and one compound term.
Training people to "just know" what you probably meant instead of
reading what you actually wrote is a very bad idea.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Guy Barry
Oct 17, 2012, 3:38:38 AM10/17/12
to
"Joy Beeson" wrote in message
news:1dcs789o8uq6kq7r3...@4ax.com...
[Mark Brader]
> > > I think a pragmatic attitude on this requires having a "hard-and-fast
> > > rule".
>
> > Why?
> Because *not* putting in the serial comma relies on telepathy, rather
> than words, to communicate that one is referring to three things,
> rather than using one simple term and one compound term.
I tend towards a "minimalist" view of punctuation. In "I bought an apple,
> > > rule".
>
> > Why?
> Because *not* putting in the serial comma relies on telepathy, rather
> than words, to communicate that one is referring to three things,
> rather than using one simple term and one compound term.
an orange and a banana" the meaning is the same whether you insert a comma
before "and" or not, so my instinct is to omit it. Advocates of the serial
comma are inconsistent in my view; they wouldn't normally write "I bought an
apple, and an orange" with only two items in the list, so why is it suddenly
required with three? The spoken intonation is no different in the two
cases.
In "I bought an apple, an orange and a banana" no telepathy is required;
there is no way of interpreting that list except as three separate items.
If for some reason the last two were meant to be taken as a single item
(maybe the shop was selling special packs containing a single orange and a
banana) then the previous sentence would be incorrect; it should be "I
bought an apple, and an orange and a banana". (Note the use of the serial
comma here before the first "and", which is necessary here to avoid
ambiguity.)
--
Guy Barry
Mark Brader
Oct 17, 2012, 12:17:53 PM10/17/12
to
Guy Barry:
> Advocates of the serial
(Thank you)
> comma are inconsistent in my view; they wouldn't normally write "I bought an
> apple, and an orange" with only two items in the list, so why is it suddenly
> required with three?
Because that's the rule.
--
Mark Brader | "I realised... at the traditional time --
Toronto | just after clicking on Send."
m...@vex.net | --Peter Duncanson
> Advocates of the serial
(Thank you)
> comma are inconsistent in my view; they wouldn't normally write "I bought an
> apple, and an orange" with only two items in the list, so why is it suddenly
> required with three?
--
Mark Brader | "I realised... at the traditional time --
Toronto | just after clicking on Send."
m...@vex.net | --Peter Duncanson
Guy Barry
Oct 18, 2012, 3:30:12 AM10/18/12
to
"Mark Brader" wrote in message
> Guy Barry:
> > Advocates of the serial
> (Thank you)
> > comma are inconsistent in my view; they wouldn't normally write "I
> > bought an
> > apple, and an orange" with only two items in the list, so why is it
> > suddenly
> > required with three?
> Because that's the rule.
a comma before "and"? Why does the number of items in the list make a
difference?
--
Guy Barry
Mark Brader
Oct 18, 2012, 4:24:07 AM10/18/12
to
Guy Barry:
>>> Advocates of the serial
>>> Advocates of the serial
>>> comma are inconsistent in my view; they wouldn't normally write "I
>>> bought an apple, and an orange" with only two items in the list,
>>> so why is it suddenly required with three?
Mark Brader:
>>> bought an apple, and an orange" with only two items in the list,
>>> so why is it suddenly required with three?
>> Because that's the rule.
Guy Barry:
> But why? ...
Because that's the rule.
> Why does the number of items in the list make a difference?
Because if there aren't at least three items, the list doesn't start
with two items coming together without a word between them.
--
Mark Brader | "shenli" Silent Domolition Agent uses in exploiting
Toronto | and cutting rock and non-explosive fragmentate and
m...@vex.net | demolish concrete. --seen in spam
Guy Barry
Oct 18, 2012, 4:32:13 AM10/18/12
to
"Mark Brader" wrote in message
> Guy Barry:
> > Why does the number of items in the list make a difference?
> Because if there aren't at least three items, the list doesn't start
> with two items coming together without a word between them.
bought an apple an orange and a banana". The comma is clearly needed to
separate the first two items; but "and" separates the last two, so you don't
need a comma there as well. "And" does the job perfectly well on its own.
--
Guy Barry
James Hogg
Oct 18, 2012, 4:57:37 AM10/18/12
to
The "and" implies some kind of connection between "Pinky and Perky".
If the list has three items, then the argument for the serial comma is
that it shows that the three items are separate and equal, and the "and"
does not imply any closer relationship between the last two: "Rag, Tag,
and Bobtail".
And that is my last word on this subject, which is going the way of too
many threads.
--
James
Guy Barry
Oct 18, 2012, 4:58:15 AM10/18/12
to
"Eric Walker" wrote in message news:k5jdhu$hv2$5...@dont-email.me...
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:30:05 +0100, Guy Barry wrote:
> > Adding a comma to the first would look ridiculously fussy in my opinion.
> > Omitting it from the second would cause ambiguity. Why does the same
> > rule need to be applied to both?
> Because a "rule" isn't a rule unless it applies universally to its
> subject matter.
> Often, the lack of some mark, such as a comma, needs to
> convey as much import as its presence does in other castings.
> The Socialist party's many aims include an early end of the
> dictatorship of Generalissimo Francisco Franco, the acceptance of a
> period of constitutional monarchy until the Spanish people can freely
> vote their own constitutional future and sweeping fiscal, agricultural
> and educational reforms.
> That muddle clarifies with the insertion of the wanted serial comma after
> "future"; without it, the reforms seem part of what the Spanish people
> will vote on, as opposed to a third aim. (And, of course, there is also
> a comma wanted after "agricultural".)
comma after "future" because it aids clarity, as you say; but there's no
need for one after "agricultural", because the sentence reads perfectly well
without it. I see no reason for treating the two cases the same way.
--
Guy Barry
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Mark Brader
Oct 18, 2012, 8:10:45 AM10/18/12
to
James Hogg:
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "No weapons of any kind are allowed on
m...@vex.net | White Sands Missile Range" -- U.S. Army
> And that is my last word on this subject, which is going the way of too
> many threads.
What He Said. (All of it.)
> many threads.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "No weapons of any kind are allowed on
m...@vex.net | White Sands Missile Range" -- U.S. Army
Guy Barry
Oct 18, 2012, 10:12:00 AM10/18/12
to
"Mark Brader" wrote in message
> James Hogg:
> > And that is my last word on this subject, which is going the way of too
> > many threads.
> What He Said. (All of it.)
comma were so ridiculously dogmatic.
--
Guy Barry
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Oct 18, 2012, 12:03:17 PM10/18/12
to
On 2012-10-16 17:51:51 +0200, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) said:
> Guy Barry:
>>>> I tend to take a pragmatic attitude to the so-called "Oxford comma"; I
>>>> generally omit it, but will insert one if it's needed to aid clarity or
>>>> avoid ambiguity. I don't see why there has to be a hard-and-fast rule.
>
> Mark Brader:
>>> I think a pragmatic attitude on this requires having a "hard-and-fast
>>> rule".
>
> Guy Barry:
>> Why? Here's an example where I wouldn't use the "Oxford comma":
>
> (Could we call it the serial comma, please? "Oxford comma" makes it
> sound as if nobody else uses it.)
It also makes it sound as everyone in Oxford does and that's not the
> Guy Barry:
>>>> I tend to take a pragmatic attitude to the so-called "Oxford comma"; I
>>>> generally omit it, but will insert one if it's needed to aid clarity or
>>>> avoid ambiguity. I don't see why there has to be a hard-and-fast rule.
>
> Mark Brader:
>>> I think a pragmatic attitude on this requires having a "hard-and-fast
>>> rule".
>
> Guy Barry:
>> Why? Here's an example where I wouldn't use the "Oxford comma":
>
> (Could we call it the serial comma, please? "Oxford comma" makes it
> sound as if nobody else uses it.)
case either, whether we take "Oxford" to mean the University, the
University Press[1], the dictionaries or the man in the Hinksey omnibus.
>
>> Today I bought an apple, an orange and a banana.
>
> If I hadn't been forced to read large amounts of other material that
> was punctuated in that evil way, I'd be inclined to want to figure out
> why "an orange and a banana" was being placed in apposition to "an apple".
[1] Hart's Rules say that it "should be used", but it's certainly not
>> Today I bought an apple, an orange and a banana.
>
> If I hadn't been forced to read large amounts of other material that
> was punctuated in that evil way, I'd be inclined to want to figure out
> why "an orange and a banana" was being placed in apposition to "an apple".
insisted on. Mind you, modern editors don't do much editing; it's too
expensive.
--
athel
Eric Walker
Oct 18, 2012, 10:50:33 PM10/18/12
to
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:58:15 +0100, Guy Barry wrote:
> "Eric Walker" wrote in message news:k5jdhu$hv2$5...@dont-email.me...
[...]
> "Eric Walker" wrote in message news:k5jdhu$hv2$5...@dont-email.me...
>> Often, the lack of some mark, such as a comma, needs to convey as much
>> import as its presence does in other castings.
>
>> The Socialist party's many aims include an early end of the
>> dictatorship of Generalissimo Francisco Franco, the acceptance of a
>> period of constitutional monarchy until the Spanish people can freely
>> vote their own constitutional future and sweeping fiscal,
>> agricultural and educational reforms.
>
>> That muddle clarifies with the insertion of the wanted serial comma
>> after "future"; without it, the reforms seem part of what the Spanish
>> people will vote on, as opposed to a third aim. (And, of course, there
>> is also a comma wanted after "agricultural".)
>
> This is a good example of where I would discriminate. I'd insert a
> serial comma after "future" because it aids clarity, as you say; but
> there's no need for one after "agricultural", because the sentence reads
> perfectly well without it. I see no reason for treating the two cases
> the same way.
cannot say that the rule is to come to a stop when the traffic light is
red if custom allows people to go through red lights on a "discretionary"
basis. If our light is green, we can go; if it is red, we must stop.
That is a *rule*, and it is crucial that everyone obey it else there will
be collisions.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Guy Barry
Oct 19, 2012, 12:05:08 AM10/19/12
to
"Eric Walker" wrote in message news:k5qf5p$opo$1...@dont-email.me...
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:58:15 +0100, Guy Barry wrote:
> > This is a good example of where I would discriminate. I'd insert a
> > serial comma after "future" because it aids clarity, as you say; but
> > there's no need for one after "agricultural", because the sentence reads
> > perfectly well without it. I see no reason for treating the two cases
> > the same way.
> I say again: a rule is not a *rule* unless it applies in all cases.
Wikipedia):
' Use commas to separate elements in a series, but do not put a comma before
the conjunction in a simple series: "The flag is red, white and blue." "He
would nominate Tom, Dick or Harry."
Put a comma before the concluding conjunction in a series, however, if an
integral element of the series requires a conjunction: "I had orange juice,
toast, and ham and eggs for breakfast."
Use a comma also before the concluding conjunction in a complex series of
phrases: "The main points to consider are whether the athletes are skillful
enough to compete, whether they have the stamina to endure the training, and
whether they have the proper mental attitude." '
That's more or less the approach I take. There are different rules to cover
different cases.
> We cannot say that the rule is to come to a stop when the traffic light is
> red if custom allows people to go through red lights on a "discretionary"
> basis. If our light is green, we can go; if it is red, we must stop.
> That is a *rule*, and it is crucial that everyone obey it else there will
> be collisions.
sentence. Can't people be trusted to apply common sense?
--
Guy Barry
Joy Beeson
Oct 19, 2012, 12:35:03 AM10/19/12
to
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:12:00 +0100, "Guy Barry"
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> It seems Lynne Truss was right. I had no idea that advocates of the serial
> comma were so ridiculously dogmatic.
And I had no idea that the advocates of confusion . . . I'm outa here.
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> It seems Lynne Truss was right. I had no idea that advocates of the serial
> comma were so ridiculously dogmatic.
Steve Hayes
Oct 19, 2012, 2:12:56 AM10/19/12
to
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:17:53 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>Guy Barry:
>> Advocates of the serial
>
>(Thank you)
>
>> comma are inconsistent in my view; they wouldn't normally write "I bought an
>> apple, and an orange" with only two items in the list, so why is it suddenly
>> required with three?
>
>Because that's the rule.
I had to keep looking to see if this was the Oxford comma thread or the bogus
>Guy Barry:
>> Advocates of the serial
>
>(Thank you)
>
>> comma are inconsistent in my view; they wouldn't normally write "I bought an
>> apple, and an orange" with only two items in the list, so why is it suddenly
>> required with three?
>
>Because that's the rule.
rules thread.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Guy Barry
Oct 19, 2012, 2:49:45 AM10/19/12
to
"Joy Beeson" wrote in message
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:12:00 +0100, "Guy Barry"
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > It seems Lynne Truss was right. I had no idea that advocates of the
> > serial
> > comma were so ridiculously dogmatic.
> And I had no idea that the advocates of confusion . . . I'm outa here.
the serial comma. If it isn't, I don't. What's the problem with that?
--
Guy Barry
Garrett Wollman
Oct 19, 2012, 2:13:45 PM10/19/12
to
In article <8K6gs.3$lz...@fx28.am4>,
confusion; leaving it out *says something subtly different*.
I'd make a Lisp analogy but I don't think that would be meaningful to
you.[1]
-GAWollman
[1] Here goes: we're taking about the difference between (A B C D E F)
and (A B C D E . F).
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm not advocating confusion. If it's needed to avoid confusion, I insert
>the serial comma. If it isn't, I don't. What's the problem with that?
For those who use the serial comma, it's *always* needed to avoid
>I'm not advocating confusion. If it's needed to avoid confusion, I insert
>the serial comma. If it isn't, I don't. What's the problem with that?
confusion; leaving it out *says something subtly different*.
I'd make a Lisp analogy but I don't think that would be meaningful to
you.[1]
-GAWollman
[1] Here goes: we're taking about the difference between (A B C D E F)
and (A B C D E . F).
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Mark Brader
Oct 19, 2012, 2:31:38 PM10/19/12
to
Guy Barry:
mention a different sort of "and" ambiguity that I just came across
in another newsgroup. The poster quoted from a news story from New
Jersey about some ketchup that exploded due to fermentation:
Tenants noticed the mess and officials and Heinz were eventually
contacted.
Because corporations are construed as singular here, this unambiguously
parses the same as:
Tenants noticed the mess, and officials and Heinz were eventually
contacted.
I would have preferred the comma, but that's a matter of style.
But in Britain where Heinz could be a plural, the original sentence
could also mean:
Tenants noticed the mess and officials, and Heinz were eventually
contacted.
! (No doubt the officials are pests attracted by the exploded ketchup,
and it's Heinz's job to get rid of them.)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | I am a mathematician, sir. I never permit myself
m...@vex.net | to think. --Stuart Mills (Carr: The Three Coffins)
>> I'm not advocating confusion. If it's needed to avoid confusion, I insert
>> the serial comma. If it isn't, I don't. What's the problem with that?
Garrett Wollman:
>> the serial comma. If it isn't, I don't. What's the problem with that?
> For those who use the serial comma, it's *always* needed to avoid
> confusion; leaving it out *says something subtly different*.
While still not commenting further on the serial comma, I'd like to
> confusion; leaving it out *says something subtly different*.
mention a different sort of "and" ambiguity that I just came across
in another newsgroup. The poster quoted from a news story from New
Jersey about some ketchup that exploded due to fermentation:
Tenants noticed the mess and officials and Heinz were eventually
contacted.
Because corporations are construed as singular here, this unambiguously
parses the same as:
Tenants noticed the mess, and officials and Heinz were eventually
contacted.
I would have preferred the comma, but that's a matter of style.
But in Britain where Heinz could be a plural, the original sentence
could also mean:
Tenants noticed the mess and officials, and Heinz were eventually
contacted.
! (No doubt the officials are pests attracted by the exploded ketchup,
and it's Heinz's job to get rid of them.)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | I am a mathematician, sir. I never permit myself
m...@vex.net | to think. --Stuart Mills (Carr: The Three Coffins)
R H Draney
Oct 19, 2012, 5:36:34 PM10/19/12
to
Garrett Wollman filted:
corrupted versions of the Latin words for "head" and "tail"?...r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>I'd make a Lisp analogy but I don't think that would be meaningful to
>you.[1]
On the subject of LISP, am I the only one who remembers "car" and "cdr" as badly
>I'd make a Lisp analogy but I don't think that would be meaningful to
>you.[1]
corrupted versions of the Latin words for "head" and "tail"?...r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Mark Brader
Oct 19, 2012, 8:25:41 PM10/19/12
to
R.H. Draney:
for "tail" is "contents of decrement part of register"?
(On the IBM 704, that is. It's in the Jargon File.)
--
Mark Brader Summary of issue: Fix FORTRAN-8x.
Toronto Committee Response: This proposal contains
m...@vex.net insurmountable technical errors.
-- X3J11 responses to 2nd public review
> On the subject of LISP, am I the only one who remembers "car" and "cdr"
> as badly corrupted versions of the Latin words for "head" and "tail"?
The Latin for "head" is "contents of address part of register" and
> as badly corrupted versions of the Latin words for "head" and "tail"?
for "tail" is "contents of decrement part of register"?
(On the IBM 704, that is. It's in the Jargon File.)
--
Mark Brader Summary of issue: Fix FORTRAN-8x.
Toronto Committee Response: This proposal contains
m...@vex.net insurmountable technical errors.
-- X3J11 responses to 2nd public review
R H Draney
Oct 20, 2012, 2:00:52 AM10/20/12
to
Mark Brader filted:
capo al coda"....r
>
>R.H. Draney:
>> On the subject of LISP, am I the only one who remembers "car" and "cdr"
>> as badly corrupted versions of the Latin words for "head" and "tail"?
>
>The Latin for "head" is "contents of address part of register" and
>for "tail" is "contents of decrement part of register"?
>
>(On the IBM 704, that is. It's in the Jargon File.)
My way's easier for me...and if I ever get confused I just have to think of "da
>R.H. Draney:
>> On the subject of LISP, am I the only one who remembers "car" and "cdr"
>> as badly corrupted versions of the Latin words for "head" and "tail"?
>
>The Latin for "head" is "contents of address part of register" and
>for "tail" is "contents of decrement part of register"?
>
>(On the IBM 704, that is. It's in the Jargon File.)
capo al coda"....r
Guy Barry
Oct 20, 2012, 2:10:57 AM10/20/12
to
"Garrett Wollman" wrote in message
news:k5s58p$1mg7$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu...
> In article <8K6gs.3$lz...@fx28.am4>,
> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >I'm not advocating confusion. If it's needed to avoid confusion, I
> >insert
> >the serial comma. If it isn't, I don't. What's the problem with that?
> For those who use the serial comma, it's *always* needed to avoid
> confusion; leaving it out *says something subtly different*.
presumably there are some circumstances where it's needed and some where it
isn't.
> I'd make a Lisp analogy but I don't think that would be meaningful to
> you.[1]
uses a similar type of list construction (though the syntax is different).
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Oct 20, 2012, 2:23:59 AM10/20/12
to
"Mark Brader" wrote in message
> While still not commenting further on the serial comma, I'd like to
> mention a different sort of "and" ambiguity that I just came across
> in another newsgroup.
> The poster quoted from a news story from New
> Jersey about some ketchup that exploded due to fermentation:
> Tenants noticed the mess and officials and Heinz were eventually
> contacted.
> Because corporations are construed as singular here, this unambiguously
> parses the same as:
> Tenants noticed the mess, and officials and Heinz were eventually
> contacted.
> I would have preferred the comma, but that's a matter of style.
definition? Or is it only a serial comma when there are three or more items
in the list? You appear to be saying that there's a hard-and-fast rule
requiring a comma before "and" for three items or more, but discretion can
be applied when there are two items (here, "tenants noticed the mess" and
"officials and Heinz were eventually contacted").
> But in Britain where Heinz could be a plural, the original sentence
> could also mean:
> Tenants noticed the mess and officials, and Heinz were eventually
> contacted.
> ! (No doubt the officials are pests attracted by the exploded ketchup,
> and it's Heinz's job to get rid of them.)
--
Guy Barry
Mark Brader
Oct 20, 2012, 2:36:30 AM10/20/12
to
Mark Brader:
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Could you guys please stop agreeing?
m...@vex.net | It's wearing me out." --Bob Lieblich
> > While still not commenting further on the serial comma, I'd like to
> > mention a different sort of "and" ambiguity that I just came across
> > in another newsgroup.
Guy Barry:
> > mention a different sort of "and" ambiguity that I just came across
> > in another newsgroup.
> This sounds rather like having your cake and eating it.
I don't see why. You may now have the last word and tell me why.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Could you guys please stop agreeing?
m...@vex.net | It's wearing me out." --Bob Lieblich
Guy Barry
Oct 20, 2012, 3:59:39 AM10/20/12
to
"Mark Brader" wrote in message
> Mark Brader:
> > > While still not commenting further on the serial comma, I'd like to
> > > mention a different sort of "and" ambiguity that I just came across
> > > in another newsgroup.
Guy Barry:
> > This sounds rather like having your cake and eating it.
> I don't see why. You may now have the last word and tell me why.
in another thread recently. Why would I want to write posts that no one
responded to?)
You mentioned that it was a type of ambiguity that could be resolved by
placing a comma before "and". A comma before "and" is a serial comma as far
as I'm concerned, even if there are only two items in the list. Hence you
appeared to be saying that you weren't commenting on the serial comma while
still commenting on it, or at least on a very closely related type of comma.
You may now reply if you wish, or not if you don't wish, just as with any
other post.
--
Guy Barry
Garrett Wollman
Oct 20, 2012, 2:02:08 PM10/20/12
to
In article <Mfrgs.11806$9H4....@fx17.am4>,
It's closely related to garden-path sentences and crash blossoms; if
the reader's expectation is
A, B, C, and D ${predicate}
then
A, B, C and D
primes the reader to expect that the list will continue with more
items:
A, B, C and D, E and F, and G and H ${predicate}
(The implication being that items C-and-D, E-and-F, and G-and-H are,
considered as units, parallel to items A and B with respect to
${predicate}.) Leaving out the final comma is discourteous to
readers, forcing them to reparse the clause when they discover the
editor's trickery. (It's worse at the end of the sentence, since
there's no way to tell which sense is meant, unless the writer has
considerately given a count.)
-GAWollman
Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>"Garrett Wollman" wrote in message
>news:k5s58p$1mg7$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu...
>
>> In article <8K6gs.3$lz...@fx28.am4>,
>> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >I'm not advocating confusion. If it's needed to avoid confusion, I
>> >insert
>> >the serial comma. If it isn't, I don't. What's the problem with that?
>
>> For those who use the serial comma, it's *always* needed to avoid
>> confusion; leaving it out *says something subtly different*.
>
>This is illogical. If leaving it out says something subtly different, then
>presumably there are some circumstances where it's needed and some where it
>isn't.
This is a matter of English usage; logic does not enter into it.
>"Garrett Wollman" wrote in message
>news:k5s58p$1mg7$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu...
>
>> In article <8K6gs.3$lz...@fx28.am4>,
>> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >I'm not advocating confusion. If it's needed to avoid confusion, I
>> >insert
>> >the serial comma. If it isn't, I don't. What's the problem with that?
>
>> For those who use the serial comma, it's *always* needed to avoid
>> confusion; leaving it out *says something subtly different*.
>
>This is illogical. If leaving it out says something subtly different, then
>presumably there are some circumstances where it's needed and some where it
>isn't.
It's closely related to garden-path sentences and crash blossoms; if
the reader's expectation is
A, B, C, and D ${predicate}
then
A, B, C and D
primes the reader to expect that the list will continue with more
items:
A, B, C and D, E and F, and G and H ${predicate}
(The implication being that items C-and-D, E-and-F, and G-and-H are,
considered as units, parallel to items A and B with respect to
${predicate}.) Leaving out the final comma is discourteous to
readers, forcing them to reparse the clause when they discover the
editor's trickery. (It's worse at the end of the sentence, since
there's no way to tell which sense is meant, unless the writer has
considerately given a count.)
-GAWollman
Guy Barry
Oct 20, 2012, 2:36:58 PM10/20/12
to
"Garrett Wollman" wrote in message
> In article <Mfrgs.11806$9H4....@fx17.am4>,
> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >This is illogical. If leaving it out says something subtly different,
> >then
> >presumably there are some circumstances where it's needed and some where
> >it
> >isn't.
> This is a matter of English usage; logic does not enter into it.
> It's closely related to garden-path sentences and crash blossoms; if
> the reader's expectation is
> A, B, C, and D ${predicate}
> then
> A, B, C and D
> primes the reader to expect that the list will continue with more
> items:
> A, B, C and D, E and F, and G and H ${predicate}
> (The implication being that items C-and-D, E-and-F, and G-and-H are,
> considered as units, parallel to items A and B with respect to
> ${predicate}.)
thread to have given a justification beyond "that's the rule, 'cos I say
so".
Essentially, you're saying that "three cheers for the red, white and blue"
might be misconstrued as part of a longer construction "three cheers for the
red, white and blue, and green and purple". Which I suppose it could be.
It's a long shot, I admit; but it could conceivably be taken that way.
All I can say is that "three cheers for the red, white, and blue" might also
be misconstrued as part of "three cheers for the red, white, and blue and
green". It depends on what you're used to.
--
Guy Barry
0 new messages