By: Sandra Wiktor
An Apology
Admittedly, it may not have been ethically sound to use such a manipulative twisting of the truth to prove a point. Obama and Hillary Clinton do not, in fact, have a daughter together, despite the phrasing of the title. In fact, using some people’s stylistic choice, the title simply suggests that a girl in Washington happened to meet Obama, Clinton and her parents.
However, in the context of the title sentence which groups Obama and Clinton together, it does indeed seem as if Obama and Clinton are the parents of the girl in Washington. While this would make for fascinating gossip, it’s definitely misleading and can cause certain problems, which shall be addressed in due course. What can be done about cases of misunderstanding like this?
Using the Oxford Comma.
What is the Oxford comma?
The Oxford comma, sometimes called the ‘serial’ or ‘series’ comma, is a topic of heated debate, with both sides of the argument adamantly in favor of their individual choice. In fact, a survey conducted by FiveThirtyEight and SurveyMonkey Audience on 1,129 Americans demonstrates that the usage of the Oxford comma is nearly split – 57% are in favor, and 43% are against. To illicit such a passionate response on both sides, the Oxford comma must be important-but what exactly is this rage-inspiring comma?
According to Dictionary.com, the Oxford comma is “a comma between the final items in a list, often preceding the word `and’ or `or’, such as the final comma in the list newspapers, magazines, and books.” For example, in the sentence, “Jake ran, jumped, and cried,” the comma after “jumped” and before “and” is the Oxford comma. However, the main concern is that the Oxford comma is optional. One does not truly need it to write a grammatically valid sentence, and many simply omit it. Even the official stylebook to which newspapers adhere, the AP Stylebook, does not require the use of the comma, which why this article is devoid of it, despite my specific preference.
And this is where the problem arises.
Should you use the Oxford Comma?
The Oxford comma is integral to, if not grammar, clarity. Perhaps it is unnecessary to include it in a sentence such as “Rose goes to the store with John, Dave and Jade.” However, stylistically, I am still a fervent supporter of the Oxford comma, merely because it allows for more clarity in other cases. Despite the fact that the previous sentence does not necessarily confuse anyone except obsessed-to-the-point-of-deluded pro-Oxford comma enthusiasts, to remain stylistically consistent, I would add the comma after “Dave” in the previous sentence.
But why is the comma necessary? Take the following sentence: “The store was raided by Roxy, the thief and the writer.” Does the sentence mean that Roxy was a thief and a writer? Or does the sentence indicate that the store was raided by three people: by a thief, by a writer and by Roxy? The misunderstanding could be avoided by a consistent use of the Oxford comma. With it, the reader can ascertain that if the comma is added, then three people had raided the store. If not, then Roxy, the single person to raid the store, was the thief and the writer.
Vicious opponents of the Oxford comma may point out that the sentence could simply be restructured. Indeed, it could. However, keeping a vigilant watch on these problems and being forced to change each instance of confusion may be cumbersome. The painstaking task of changing sentence after sentence could easily be avoided by simply adding the Oxford comma each time.These problems are sometimes left unnoticed, which may result in quite interesting situations, such as the one in which Britain’s Sky News posted the following news bulletin: “Top stories: World leaders at Mandela tribute, Obama-Castro handshake and same-sex marriage date set.” I hope Obama and Castro have a fulfilling, happy marriage, and that Michelle Obama is not overly distraught. Furthermore, take this example by the author of a 1921 guide to the style of the Atlantic Monthly Press, George Ives: “Zinovieff shot over five hundred of the bourgeoisie at a stroke—nobles, professors, officers, journalists, men and women.” There, it is clear that the omitting of the Oxford comma was intentional – it makes it easier to demonstrate that “men and women” are not another group altogether. Rather, this sentence shows that the nobles, professors, officers, and journalists which were killed were both men and women.
Another example of such confusion is described by mentalfloss.com: “I am going to the drugstore for new beauty supplies, light bulbs and gum.” This sentence, without the Oxford comma, indicates that the interesting individual in question uses light bulbs and gum as beauty supplies. While my intention is not to assault people’s individual choices in life, it is unlikely that this individual uses light bulbs and gum as beauty supplies. The comma would avoid such confusion. This is the same case in the very famous argument of: “I would like to thank my parents, Jane and God.” This one does not require explanation.
And so?
Writers should use the Oxford comma. They should do so without hesitation and without fail each time as necessary, and one should omit it when the need arises to allow for more clarity. They should not subject themselves to the torment of plodding through their already mistake-ridden writing and rephrasing each confusing-sounding sentence without the Oxford comma. They should not have to deal with the terrifying experience of public ridicule if they accidentally insist that Obama and Castro are getting married.
They should simply be good to themselves and to us all and add this comma.
Comments