Best argument I've ever seen for the Oxford Comma

paxanimus · 2012-05-26T18:14:16.210656+00:00

You're right: it's not mere happen stance. A pause was the comma's original intention, but it has gone far beyond that in modern English: there are pauses where there are not commas, and there are commas where there are not pauses. A spoken pause is not the only criteria for a comma, and thus "it isn't how it would be spoken" is not a sufficient argument when deciding upon a comma's presence.

I'm of the opinion that the Oxford comma shouldn't be all or nothing: it can be used or omitted when necessary to clear up ambiguity, and in this case, omitting it gives a clearer sentence.

Tulemasin · 2012-05-26T17:34:32.394622+00:00

You're clearly not a scientist. Get out.

danceswithronin · 2012-05-26T08:08:09.946119+00:00

The majority of people I've asked, especially my friends who study English Literature, hate Jane Austen. It's not just Twain.

(I should point out that I've never read anything of hers myself, so can't comment.)

paxanimus · 2012-05-26T08:03:24.365814+00:00

How it is spoken is utterly meaningless. A comma is not a place where you take a pause when speaking; it just so happens that in many cases, they happen to be in the same place.

paxanimus · 2012-05-26T07:58:06.606634+00:00

You seemingly just can't fathom its use. When the second part of the sentence is an explanation or expansion of the first, a colon is used; when it could be a sentence in its own right (like this) a semicolon is used.

paxanimus · 2012-05-26T07:56:06.132290+00:00

It's also incorrect. The second part should read:

Has blade; named Sting.

paxanimus · 2012-05-26T07:53:16.867377+00:00

I can think of no real rational reason

Sometimes it creates more ambiguity, as demonstrated in other posts. I can think of several situations where its presence hurts. Also, English is not a language of rationality. Many of its rules are arbitrary. One of those is that we do not use Oxford commas.

Now, while I'll agree that sometimes, yes, they clear up ambiguity and their absence hurts, but I can think of no real rational reason to use them in other cases.

jakedebest · 1 day

My advice would be to work hard and aim for a 1st, and to spend your summers doing relevant internships. That way, you can apply to a better uni to do a Master's, and increase your job prospects greatly.

jakedebest · 1 day

I think at the end of the day it doesn't matter too much: research teams (both industrial and academic) can include people with many different undergraduate degrees working on the same thing, which is why I always recommend that people choose the degree they're most interested in, not the one that they think will let them earn slightly more.

deathlyreaver · 3 days

Underground farms no longer require irrigation.

Unless you've embarked on a purely mountainous area, surely there'll be a layer of soil somewhere. Just dig some rooms 1 level deep in that, and plant seeds (for underground plants there).

srsd4me · 9 days

It's still directly insulting someone for lacking in wit (which in this case, is a direct synonym for intelligence) rather than for their words or actions, though.

srsd4me · 9 days

Actually, I'd argue that being obtuse is wilfully, intentionally misunderstanding things, or generally being hard to deal with, much in the same way that ignorance is a wilful lack of knowledge.

Otherwise, good point - now I'm worried that I'm so subtly ableist that I simply hide my ableism behind "intelligent" words, so that the people I'm ableist against won't realise.

soozeh92 · 9 days

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but some opinions are wrong and I'm entitled to give people hell for it.

failedrevolution · 9 days

Females attempting to use their wiles on me!

Anonymooted · 9 days

I know. It's not the argument I was making.

srsd4me · 9 days

In all honesty, we all just shouldn't go there.

But we still need a way of being able to call out specific ideas, actions or sayings. If someone says something indicative of a lack of thought or knowledge, one can point this out without insulting the person: previously, I would have said, "that was a stupid thing to say" but now I'm more likely to call it asinine, ignorant or obtuse.

Anonymooted · 9 days

To be honest, no it's not, because no one is going to go to that length unless I'm being investigated for a very serious crime. As this very news piece shows, the government nor the police are that competent.

Also, the vast majority of CCTV cameras are not publicly owned and thus not available under a FoI act.

Anonymooted · 9 days

While I don't agree with it either,

You've got people getting into trouble because they moved their lips and breathed out in a certain order.

Is a stupid reason. "You've got people getting into trouble because they moved their feet and fists in a certain order."

Anonymooted · 9 days

No. You'll get arrested if you say "I hate these specific niggers."

Anonymooted · 9 days

It's nice how you completely failed to mention how our libel law is soon going to be changed, and that libel reform is a huge political and public issue. You don't seem to realise that laws like this are antiquated, and that we know they are antiquated and are making an effort to modernise them.

Anonymooted · 9 days

I assume you're American, calling us cattle? That's rich. Aren't you the country who still forces your children to swear to the flag?

Anonymooted · 9 days

At least I can openly declare my atheism or homosexuality and still get a career in politics.

Anonymooted · 9 days

Not thought crime, speech crime.

Anonymooted · 9 days

Oh no, public cameras in public places where any member of the public walking past could see my public actions? How horrifying!

Anonymooted · 9 days

Political free speech is the one right everyone agrees is important. Not the freedom to make racist remarks.

thecatinabox

TROPHY CASE

thecatinabox

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login