Lack of Oxford Comma Costs Company Millions

nytimes.com

12 points·ubasu··6 comments

I've never heard a convincing argument against including the oxford comma. I always use it as it removes any chance of ambiguity. Even publications that have a policy of not using the extra comma will sometimes do so for that reason (e.g. The Associated Press and New York Times according to the article). Why not simply be consistent and use it always? What is the downside that I am missing?

I've seen some examples where either Oxford comma or no Oxford comma increases ambiguity, based on the sentence. The pro-comma example:

- He invited the strippers, JFK and Hitler.

- He invited the strippers, JFK, and Hitler.

(This makes it clear that the strippers are not named JFK and Hitler). The anti-comma example:

- He invited the stripper, JFK, and Hitler.

- He invited the stripper, JFK and Hitler.

With the Oxford comma, it may be that the stripper's name is JFK, whereas without it's unambiguous that these are three separate people.

> He invited the stripper, JFK, and Hitler.

This is a good example. Thanks.

I think I would probably get around this by writing it as: He invited the stripper - JFK - and Hitler.

Or more likely: He invited JFK - the stripper - and Hitler.

> With the Oxford comma, it may be that the stripper's name is JFK, whereas without it's unambiguous that these are three separate people.

You mean, without it is ambiguous whether they are different than people or a single stripper with the stage name "JFK and Hitler" (which is probably less common than, say, "Peaches and cream", but structurally similar.)

It can be parsed as "The stripper named JFK, and hitler."

Yes, the form with the Oxford comma has that ambiguity, as stated in the great grandparent post; the grandparent post was pointing to the ambiguity that remains without the Oxford comma.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com