Hacker News Reader

Comment by happytoexplain | Hacker News Reader

>the relationship between carriers, Google and Apple.

I am begging you to accept the Oxford comma into your heart.

I think anyone who couldn’t infer the meaning of that sentence deserves whatever dire consequence you imagine they might experience.

Plenty of people don't know the definition of "carrier," and it's especially confusing because Google is a reseller (via Google Fi).

A single comma would clear up any possible confusion and require nearly zero time to add.

To be fair, this was an egregious sentence to not add a comma to.

It needs to be reworded. "Between" implies two parties: so a relationship between (one carrier) and (one mobile OS/app dev/vendor).

Since there are many carriers and at least two OS vendors, now we have "...relationships among..."

Well technically...

https://fi.google.com/

The Oxford comma isn't a panacea. Sometime it makes a list read like a parenthetical phrase

In every example I recall seeing where using an Oxford comma causes a problem it is because some sort of appositive or parenthetical phrase has been set off with commas.

Commas are the most common way to set off such phrases, but they are not the only way. Most grammarians seem to think that em dashes or parenthesis are acceptable, and I've seen styles guides that recommend doing that if there are commas in the sentence.

As far as I can tell if we just stopped using commas to set off such phrases when other commas are in the sentence (or just stopped using commas to set off such phrases all the time) that would get rid of all the cases where including the Oxford comma in a list makes the list ambiguous, without changing the cases where not having an Oxford comma is ambiguous.

Cue the em-dash, semicolon, colon, and parenthetical as secondary clause separators. If you still can't use the (in my opinion mandatory) serial comma without ambiguity then you need to rephrase.

I don't agree. Can you share an example?

They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and a cook.

Is Betty a maid or did they go with 3 people?

This could be two people, but would normally be written with a different separator: "Betty, a maid; and a cook" (just removing the comma doesn't help because then Betty could be a maid and a cook). As-is, the implication is that this is three people. If you would like to make that more explicit, you would instead re-structure the sentence†, so it's not highly relevant to the serial-comma-vs-no issue.

†For example:

Betty, one maid, and one cook.

Betty, and a maid and a cook (a little awkward)

A maid, a cook, and Betty (depends on how you want Betty's inclusion to land for the reader)

Right, you can change punctuation to clarify it. However, it doesn't change the fact that the Oxford comma could make the list readable as a parenthetical phrase.

I'm not saying the Oxford comma is bad. I'm just saying that it isn't 100% perfect as many people imply.

Three people; otherwise it should be, "They went to Oregon with a cook, and Betty, a maid."

Or better yet: "They went to Oregon with a cook, and maid named Betty."

Thanks, fixed :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com