Syl Sabastian's Blog - Posts Tagged "serial-comma"

Usually we can get away with not using the Oxford as by *implication* when we write: something1, something2 and something3 it's implied we are listing three items. Typically this is so, hence not using the comma after something2, by *implication,* conveys our meaning of three items. But, what happens when something2 and something3 are a unit? As in macaroni and cheese, the dish.

If I find a note on the fridge:

“Please get the following from the supermarket: salad, macaroni and cheese.”

Do I go to the groceries shelves for the macaroni and the dairy section and for the cheese, and thus buy three items, or to the deli and buy two? My decision would depend on me knowing if the writer typically uses the Oxford or not. If they usually do, I can be confident of going to the deli, where I can get the prepared dish of macaroni and cheese.

However, if they are in the habit of not using the Oxford, I have a problem. They could mean either, I have no way of knowing. This is the heart of the problem when not *consistently* using the Oxford. Yes, often, or even mostly, non-usage does not impact meaning, but, this non-usage sets up a pattern which then creates a problem when something2 and something3 are a unit, and not separate, but could also be. As it is with macaroni and cheese.

When we typically don't use the Oxford we are left with needing to work around this pattern when we *mean* to list only two items. In my example, a serial non-user of the Oxford would have to write the note in such a way as to specify they mean two items, and not their typical implied three. Like:

“Please get the following from the supermarket: salad, and macaroni-and-cheese.”

Or:

“Please get the following from the supermarket: salad, and also macaroni and cheese.”

Whereas had they been in the habit of using the Oxford, we would know it's omission means two items. Simple. When writing books, there's of course time for this usage pattern to make a difference, especially if we write more than one. Further, authors *know* what they mean, but often do not account for readers coming to their expression of that knowing without having any idea whatsoever, and thus open to multiple interpretation. What seems obvious to us isn't always so to the reader. The less we leave matters open to multiple interpretations we don't intend, the better.

A little more example: I use, “Awareness, Discernment, and Understanding” regularly. Always with the Oxford. Here, “Discernment and Understanding are not a unit, at least not in my typical usage, so I don't strictly *need* the Oxford. But, I also regularly use, “Awareness, Attunement and Alignment.” here “Attunement and Alignment” IS typically a unit, and go together, are linked. Should I typically write: “Awareness, Discernment and Understanding” and then also, “Awareness, Attunement and Alignment.”  How is my reader to know Discernment and understanding are not a linked unit?

The problem with using or not using the Oxford comes down to having a more Overview Perspective. Understanding that non-usage *can* be is often okay when it comes to conveying our meaning, but creates problem in the longer-term or in specific instances. It's a matter of Discernment and logic thus, of lol, Awareness, Discernment, and Understanding. These being so dear to my heart, this article is an example of their Application when it comes to practical matters  :) :D

A few examples illustrating where the Oxford matters and is needed to make appropriate sense of the sentence:

“...experience in Individual, Marriage, and Family Counseling,...”
“...that course of actions, thoughts, and feelings she wants to...”

Can you provide more examples of where the Oxford is needed and makes a difference?

#OxfordComma #SerialComma #Discernment #Understanding #Writing
www.SylSabastian.Blogspot.com
https://www.facebook.com/syl.sabastian (For Comments)
Enter your email address:


[image error] Subscribe in a reader