Anne, Don't get me started on the Oxford comma. To the day I retired, I required that my students continue to use the Oxford comma when their sentence had three or more iwords, pharses, or sentences in a series. I don't like change, especially when it causes more confusion for writers. I also told my students who had a love-hate relationship with commas that more is not better. When in doubt, leave it out. So many kids dot their sentences with random commas that serve absolutely NO purpose.
Thanks, Annie, for another informative and hilarious piece of writing. I had a restorative laughing fit, I got some needed support for my stance on the Oxford comma, and I didn't fall into a coma whilst reading it.
Anne, Don't get me started on the Oxford comma. To the day I retired, I required that my students continue to use the Oxford comma when their sentence had three or more iwords, pharses, or sentences in a series See how I used that Oxord comma? I don't like change, especially when it causes more confusion for writers. I also told my students who had a love-hate relationship with commas that more is not better. When in doubt, leave it out. So many kids dot their sentences with random commas that serve absolutely NO purpose.
A wise and imaginative friend of mine pointed out that the example involving Betty and the maid held another ambiguity even without the serial comma:
>They went to Sydney with Betty, a maid, and a cook.
>Three people? Or two people: a cook and a maid named Betty?
Michael posits: Or one person, should the serial comma be omitted: Betty (a maid and a cook). So in this example, you get possible misreading in both cases, regardless of whether or not the serial comma is observed. Recasting, therefore, is the only option to resolve ambiguity.
Anne, Don't get me started on the Oxford comma. To the day I retired, I required that my students continue to use the Oxford comma when their sentence had three or more iwords, pharses, or sentences in a series. I don't like change, especially when it causes more confusion for writers. I also told my students who had a love-hate relationship with commas that more is not better. When in doubt, leave it out. So many kids dot their sentences with random commas that serve absolutely NO purpose.
Smart teacher, you! ❤
Thanks, Annie, for another informative and hilarious piece of writing. I had a restorative laughing fit, I got some needed support for my stance on the Oxford comma, and I didn't fall into a coma whilst reading it.
Anne, Don't get me started on the Oxford comma. To the day I retired, I required that my students continue to use the Oxford comma when their sentence had three or more iwords, pharses, or sentences in a series See how I used that Oxord comma? I don't like change, especially when it causes more confusion for writers. I also told my students who had a love-hate relationship with commas that more is not better. When in doubt, leave it out. So many kids dot their sentences with random commas that serve absolutely NO purpose.
A wise and imaginative friend of mine pointed out that the example involving Betty and the maid held another ambiguity even without the serial comma:
>They went to Sydney with Betty, a maid, and a cook.
>Three people? Or two people: a cook and a maid named Betty?
Michael posits: Or one person, should the serial comma be omitted: Betty (a maid and a cook). So in this example, you get possible misreading in both cases, regardless of whether or not the serial comma is observed. Recasting, therefore, is the only option to resolve ambiguity.
This is why Michael is my friend.
Thanks, Annie, I needed that!