Serial Killers: The truth about the Oxford comma

Aug 6th, 2008 | By John Roach | Category: Grammar

Since the dawn of time, man has waged war because of deeply held beliefs. But none of these beliefs have been so divisive, so enraging, so trivial as the Oxford comma.

The Oxford, or serial, comma is the comma just before the conjunction in a list.

For breakfast, I had ham, eggs, and toast.

Its usage is one of the most hotly debated issues in grammar to this day.

The case against the Oxford comma

Most arguments for omitting the serial comma turn on two points:

The comma is a stand-in for “and” already, and
That’s the way I’ve always done it.

Both of the arguments, in my professional opinion, are a load of hooey.

My rebuttal is as follows: The comma has evolved into a much more nuanced syntactical element than a mere conjunction replacement, and you also used to go potty in your pants.

The case for the Oxford comma

The Oxford comma almost always avoids ambiguity. Consider the canonical example:

I’d like to thank my parents, Adolf Hitler and Ayn Rand.

Is the speaker thanking 2 people or 4? The comma omission provides us with no answer.

I’d like to thank my parents, Adolf Hitler, and Ayn Rand.

Much more understandable.

Furthermore, when an element within a list contains a conjunction, even those who most ardently believe the serial comma should be omitted will gladly insert it.

For breakfast I had eggs, bread and butter, and bacon.

Otherwise, it would just look silly.

For breakfast I had eggs, bread and butter and bacon.

Who uses and who omits the Oxford comma

Fowler and Chicago use it; The AP, bless their hearts, omits it. This should come as a surprise to no one, as they omitted the accent aigu in fiancé.

Should I use it or omit it?

Depends on your house style. In general, though, unless you are writing in AP style, use it. Above all, use common sense: If the meaning of a sentence is unclear without the comma, insert it, no matter what your stylesheet says.