<story><title> Lack of Oxford Comma Could Cost Maine Company Millions in Overtime Dispute</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/oxford-comma-lawsuit.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jakelazaroff</author><text>It can create ambiguity as well as remove it, depending on which terms can be appositives to other terms. Classic example:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.&amp;quot; (ambiguous without the comma)&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God.&amp;quot; (ambiguous with the comma)</text></item><item><author>mercer</author><text>Is there &lt;i&gt;any&lt;/i&gt; good argument for eschewing the extra comma when it clearly disambiguates the meaning of the sentence?&lt;p&gt;I can&amp;#x27;t think of one, but I also find it (slightly) difficult to believe that anyone smart enough to write an article would insist on ambiguity for no good reason...&lt;p&gt;EDIT: to disambiguate my own comment: with &amp;#x27;when&amp;#x27; I meant &amp;#x27;in cases where leaving out the comma causes ambiguity&amp;#x27;. Personally I try to prioritize clarity so sometimes I will use an extra comma, and sometimes I won&amp;#x27;t.</text></item><item><author>leephillips</author><text>&amp;quot;omitting the serial comma is fairly archaic at this point&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Wish that were true! But many news organization style guides condemn the Oxford comma, with sometimes disastrous results:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.chronicle.com&amp;#x2F;blogs&amp;#x2F;linguafranca&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;12&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;for-want-of-an-oxford-comma&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.chronicle.com&amp;#x2F;blogs&amp;#x2F;linguafranca&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;12&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;for-w...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>weeksie</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t think I&amp;#x27;ve ever heard an impassioned argument against the Oxford Comma. I mean, I have no problem with it, but there seems to be a belief that this is a less filling&amp;#x2F;tastes great holy war, but really, omitting the serial comma is fairly archaic at this point. At least in my experience. Sometimes lists need one, sometimes they don&amp;#x27;t. At this point in the evolution of our written language that should be a fairly unambiguous proposition.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Declanomous</author><text>This is why I think style guides that disallow parenthetical comments are ridiculous. If Ayn Rand was really the author&amp;#x27;s mother, I think it would make far more sense to say:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;To my mother (Ayn Rand), and God.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;If it looks a little ridiculous, it&amp;#x27;s because it makes more sense this way:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;To Ayn Rand (my mother), and God.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;In my honest opinion, most style guides are dogmatic to the point of stupidity. The first time I saw a non-scientific style-guide I spent a week ruminating on why people hated clear meaning so much.&lt;p&gt;I have a similar question about endnotes. Why? If you want to share a single comment, why not use a footnote? Why make the reader flip to the back of your book to read a 4 word sentence?</text></comment>
<story><title> Lack of Oxford Comma Could Cost Maine Company Millions in Overtime Dispute</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/oxford-comma-lawsuit.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jakelazaroff</author><text>It can create ambiguity as well as remove it, depending on which terms can be appositives to other terms. Classic example:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.&amp;quot; (ambiguous without the comma)&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God.&amp;quot; (ambiguous with the comma)</text></item><item><author>mercer</author><text>Is there &lt;i&gt;any&lt;/i&gt; good argument for eschewing the extra comma when it clearly disambiguates the meaning of the sentence?&lt;p&gt;I can&amp;#x27;t think of one, but I also find it (slightly) difficult to believe that anyone smart enough to write an article would insist on ambiguity for no good reason...&lt;p&gt;EDIT: to disambiguate my own comment: with &amp;#x27;when&amp;#x27; I meant &amp;#x27;in cases where leaving out the comma causes ambiguity&amp;#x27;. Personally I try to prioritize clarity so sometimes I will use an extra comma, and sometimes I won&amp;#x27;t.</text></item><item><author>leephillips</author><text>&amp;quot;omitting the serial comma is fairly archaic at this point&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Wish that were true! But many news organization style guides condemn the Oxford comma, with sometimes disastrous results:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.chronicle.com&amp;#x2F;blogs&amp;#x2F;linguafranca&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;12&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;for-want-of-an-oxford-comma&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.chronicle.com&amp;#x2F;blogs&amp;#x2F;linguafranca&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;12&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;for-w...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>weeksie</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t think I&amp;#x27;ve ever heard an impassioned argument against the Oxford Comma. I mean, I have no problem with it, but there seems to be a belief that this is a less filling&amp;#x2F;tastes great holy war, but really, omitting the serial comma is fairly archaic at this point. At least in my experience. Sometimes lists need one, sometimes they don&amp;#x27;t. At this point in the evolution of our written language that should be a fairly unambiguous proposition.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>coldpie</author><text>The best rule, of course, is that hard rules are dumb. Read your writing, have others read your writing, discuss ambiguities as they arise(,) and solve them. Keep in mind you may have to entirely re-word your sentence or paragraph to fix ambiguities.</text></comment>