QT 21 – Video Transcript and Bonus Info
Welcome to another 2-Minute Tuesday from Toolhouse Rock Studio. Today’s QuickTake with Cate begins with a stanza from a much-loved poem. You may remember it.
“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
Of cabbages—and kings—
And why the sea is boiling hot—
And whether pigs have wings.”
Or to put Cate’s spin on it,
“The time has come,” the teacher said,
“To talk of serial things:
Of shoes—comma—ships—comma, conjunction—and sealing-wax—
And the fact that, according to editor Dryer, only ‘godless savages eschew the series comma.’”
Yes, today’s is a hot topic, the serial comma (or series comma), sometimes called the Oxford comma or Harvard comma. It is the comma that separates the last and next-to-last items in a series. Whatever you call it, use it.
A series means three or more items. Those “items” include words, phrases, and clauses. Here’s an example of three clauses, also from Lewis Carroll’s poem:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat—
Although the last item in a series is usually connected with a joining word such as and, or, and but, it doesn’t have to be—as in the example just given.
Bryan A. Garner writes, “Whether to include the serial comma has sparked many arguments. But it’s easily answered in favor of inclusion because omitting the final comma may cause ambiguities, whereas including it never will.”
Consider this example: If I were to give you a grocery list and five bucks, how may items would you come back with?
Please buy me milk, cookies, macaroni and cheese.
You’d probably come back with a small carton of milk, a package of cookies, and a blue and white box that says Kraft Macaroni and Cheese.
But is that what I had wanted? Or is this what I wanted?
Please buy me milk, cookies, macaroni, and cheese.
So what’s the problem? Why is there resistance to including the serial comma? Tune in next time to learn the answer—and an exception to the rule—and thanks for watching!
The rest of the story:
When asked, “What’s the most frequent punctuation error that transactional lawyers make?” attorney and lexicographer Bryan A. Garner, replied:
“Failing to use the serial comma (aka the ‘Oxford comma’). Its omission is a mistake in legal instruments because litigable ambiguities often result.”
He argues that the reason for “preferring the final comma is that omitting it may cause ambiguities, while including it never will.”
And if you think the serial comma isn’t really such a big deal, check out these cases:
United States v. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat) 610,636 (1818), in which Johnson, J, in his dissenting opinion, writes
“[M]en’s lives may depend upon a comma….”
Rex v. Casement, [1917] 1 K.B. 98 (1916) for an English example of life depending on a comma.
(The Elements of Legal Style, 2nd edition, Bryan A. Garner)