Could we please take the religious discussions elsewhere than this list?
-j
On 2019-01-08 12:55, Tom Beiswenger wrote:
It's more than "Oxford style." The use of a serial comma is covered in the Chicago Manual of Style.
Per entry 5.50: "In a series consisting of three or more elements, the elements are separated by commas.
When a conjunction joins the last two elements in a series, a comma is used before the conjunction." The
British "The Economist Style Guide" specifically directs writers to NOT use a serial comma.
I have followed the serial comma rule since I went from being a newspaper
journalist to being a technical writer nearly 30 years ago. My personal opinion
is that the serial comma can be optional, but whether it is used or no used
must be consistent throughout any document or book. We have been using it for
more than 30 years. I see no need to change.
Tom Beiswenger
Project Manager, Manager IB Technical Documentation
Emhart Glass Inc.
74 Kahler Road North • Horseheads NY 14845 • USA
Telephone 1 607 735 2551 • Mobile +1 607 769 4779
Fax +1 607 735 2601
[email protected]
www.bucheremhartglass.com
www.bucherindustries.com
Privacy Policy: www.bucheremhartglass.com/privacy
-----"Framers"
<framers-bounces+tom.beiswenger=emhartglass....@lists.frameusers.com> wrote: -----
To: An email list for people using Adobe FrameMaker software.
<[email protected]>
From: Stephen Rickaby
Sent by: "Framers"
Date: 01/08/2019 05:10AM
Subject: Re: [Framers] OT: Punctuation question
At 09:33 +0000 8/1/19, shuttie27 wrote:
Two points:The "Oxford style" is to include the comma, not to omit it. It was
so named because the Oxford University Press, almost alone among British publishers,
mandated it in their style guide. Secondly, as for its being essential to avoid
ambiguity, tell that to all the other British and other publishers who don't use it, and
generations of British and other writers who have never used it.
You are correct; I miswrote. 'Oxford Guide to Style', R M Ritter (an American
gentleman, by the way), OUP 2002, pp 121-122. This cites many instances where
the serial comma is necessary to avoid ambiguity, but admits that omitting it
is often done in US and UK English, but then goes on to suggest that you might
as well bung it in anyway.
However, following the publication of this book there was a good deal of
spirited debate on the topic. As far as I remember (and I communicated with Mr
Ritter at the time but have mislaid the emails), the consensus, based on
several existing styles guides, was that 'UK style' was to omit the serial
comma unless by so doing ambiguity was introduced, while US style was always to
include it.
Here for example is the relevant part of the British Psycholoigcal Society's
style guide:
[Commas are...] Not required before 'and' in a list of items, unless to avoid
an ambiguity or to clarify where one item ends and another begins (particularly
where the items are lengthy). Examples:
* ..in the professional work of clinical, forensic and educational
psychologists.
* The Bishops of Winchester, and Bath and Wells [two bishops, not three]
Or this from the Thomson Learning style guide:
* Do not impose serial commas in lists of three or more items except to avoid
ambiguity.
Or from The Economist style guide:
* Lists: with lists do not put a comma before 'and' at the end of a sequence of
items unless one of the items includes another 'and'.
Thus:
'The doctor suggested an aspirin, half a grapefruit and a cup of broth. But he
ordered scrambled eggs, whisky and soda, and a selection from the trolley.'
--
Johan Anglemark
Tel: 0708-65 10 88
_______________________________________________
This message is from the Framers mailing list
Send messages to [email protected]
Visit the list's homepage at http://www.frameusers.com
Archives located at http://www.mail-archive.com/framers%40lists.frameusers.com/
Subscribe and unsubscribe at
http://lists.frameusers.com/listinfo.cgi/framers-frameusers.com
Send administrative questions to [email protected]
