What are you reading?

[opaltiger]

Still getting through Wuthering Heights, slowly but surely. To think I could be reading Nineteen Eighty-Four for the third time instead.

Have you read Brave New World? I find it better than Nineteen Eighty-Four in pretty much every way.

 

[departuresong]

Have you read Brave New World? I find it better than Nineteen Eighty-Four in pretty much every way.

I haven't yet, but I really hope to soon.

 

[Ruby]

Huxley's writing style is flabbier and less modern, but the two books have more in common than people sometimes think. It is not a simple matter of control by force vs. control by mind-numbing.

 

[Altair66]

Im reading," The Magician Nephew". Its a book in the Cronicles of Narnia 7 book series.

 

[Leaftail]

I'm reading The City of Ember. I've been reading it for three days and I just reached page 100. It's a really interesting story so far. I can't wait to start The People of Sparks.

 

[Coloursfall]

The Zombie Survival Guide by Max Brooks. Ma just bought it for me today~

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Read Abhorsen, Eats, Shoots and Leaves, Superior Saturday, The Thin Executioner and a book about serial killers while I was in Derry for the weekend. Polishing off Lord Sunday tonight, then I'm going to try and get through The Colour of Magic, Guards! Guards!, Night Watch and Thud! while I'm in Cobh, then the first two Belgariad books. After that it's a tossup between Mein Kampf and Raymond E. Feists's Magician

 

[Ruby]

Eats, Shoots and Leaves is a ridiculous evangelical preach, but it does at least make people conscious of their own writing.

 

[opaltiger]

Eats, Shoots and Leaves is a ridiculous evangelical preach, but it does at least make people conscious of their own writing.

Also it appears to dislike the Oxford comma.

 

[Storm Earth and Fire]

Medium Rare by Anthony Bourdain. Kitchen Confidential was a brilliant book, recommend it to anyone who likes food.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Eats, Shoots and Leaves is a ridiculous evangelical preach, but it does at least make people conscious of their own writing.

I found it entertaining, if a bit heavy-handed.

Also it appears to dislike the Oxford comma.

I quite agree with Lynne Truss on that point.

As it happened, I discovered several wonderful bookshops stocking second-hand books down in Cork and managed to furnish myself with the entire Belgariad. I'm on Castle of Wizardry right now, once I've finished it, I'm going to return to Pratchett, since between us, my friend Damien and I have all the Death and City Watch books.

 

[opaltiger]

I quite agree with Lynne Truss on that point.

Would you care to argue your point?

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Would you care to argue your point?

1. I think it is aesthetically unpleasant.
2. I think it creates more ambiguity than it resolves.
3. I think it's a cheap escape for people who can't be arsed to just reorder lists.
4. I think it's an arrogant punctuation mark that wants to put itself above "and".

 

[opaltiger]

1. I think it is aesthetically unpleasant.
2. I think it creates more ambiguity than it resolves.
3. I think it's a cheap escape for people who can't be arsed to just reorder lists.
4. I think it's an arrogant punctuation mark that wants to put itself above "and".

I hope you'll forgive me if I ignore points #1 and #4.

As for #2, I disagree. The Oxford comma resolves ambiguity in nearly all cases, and in the rare cases it creates it, omitting the comma is not much better. The wiki page on it has some good examples to this effect.

And #3? That's bullshit and you know it. Reordering lists is not always possible, and even if it is, it may not be preferable from a stylistic standpoint. The Oxford comma is a long-accepted convention that reads more naturally than the alternative. I don't see any reason to omit it, save the general trend in parts of the English speaking world towards a more "simplified" language.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

I hope you'll forgive me if I ignore points #1 and #4.

As for #2, I disagree. The Oxford comma resolves ambiguity in nearly all cases, and in the rare cases it creates it, omitting the comma is not much better. The wiki page on it has some good examples to this effect.

And #3? That's bullshit and you know it. Reordering lists is not always possible, and even if it is, it may not be preferable from a stylistic standpoint. The Oxford comma is a long-accepted convention that reads more naturally than the alternative. I don't see any reason to omit it, save the general trend in parts of the English speaking world towards a more "simplified" language.

2. I've seen the wiki page and I think the "They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid and a cook" illustrates my point well, since the ambiguity is resolved better by rephrasing than by the Oxford comma.

3. First of all, yes, it is always possible to reorder a list. And even if the person doesn't want to reorder the list, there are other things one could put in instead of an Oxford comma. Secondly, the Oxford comma introduces an unnatural-sounding beat between the penultimate item in the list and the word "and". Take for example "Portugal, Spain and France" which reads nice and rhythmically (1-and-ah-2-and-3) whereas the addition of the Oxford comma "Portugal, Spain, and France" does not (1-and-ah-2-beat-and-3). It's an unnecessary and intrusive punctuation point that throws off the rhythm of a list.

 

[Lili]

I just started Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince this morning. I love how the Prime Minister freaks out over the talking painting and Cornelius Fudge appearing out of nowhere in the first chapter.

 

[opaltiger]

2. I've seen the wiki page and I think the "They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid and a cook" illustrates my point well, since the ambiguity is resolved better by rephrasing than by the Oxford comma.

This is what I meant. Both cases are ambiguous; you're arguing in favour of re-ordering the list, not against the Oxford comma. And since the Oxford comma resolves ambiguity in many other cases, I don't see why you would argue against it.

3. First of all, yes, it is always possible to reorder a list.

I would argue that there are cases where a list must contain its items in a given order, but let us leave that be.

And even if the person doesn't want to reorder the list, there are other things one could put in instead of an Oxford comma.

Such as?

Secondly, the Oxford comma introduces an unnatural-sounding beat between the penultimate item in the list and the word "and". Take for example "Portugal, Spain and France" which reads nice and rhythmically (1-and-ah-2-and-3) whereas the addition of the Oxford comma "Portugal, Spain, and France" does not (1-and-ah-2-beat-and-3). It's an unnecessary and intrusive punctuation point that throws off the rhythm of a list.

See, maybe we just speak the language differently, but I couldn't disagree more. I would always pronounce the pause before the "and". Pronouncing it otherwise makes it sound like "Spain and France" belong together. Think of the length of the pause between "Portugal" and "Spain" when you say that; is the pause between "Spain" and "and" really shorter? Because if it isn't, there needs to be a comma.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

This is what I meant. Both cases are ambiguous; you're arguing in favour of re-ordering the list, not against the Oxford comma. And since the Oxford comma resolves ambiguity in many other cases, I don't see why you would argue against it.

Because any case where the Oxford comma could resolve ambiguity could have the ambiguity resolved in another way. I view it as an intrusive and unnecessary punctuation point. Using the Oxford comma to maintain a list's order for stylistic reasons is essentially using poetic license on punctuation, which is something I don't hold with.

Such as?

Some examples from the wiki page;

They went to Oregon with Betty, who was a maid and a cook.
They went to Oregon with Betty, both a maid and a cook.
They went to Oregon with Betty (a maid) and a cook.
They went to Oregon with Betty – a maid – and a cook.
They went to Oregon with the maid Betty and a cook.
They went to Oregon with Betty and a maid and a cook.
They went to Oregon with Betty, one maid and a cook.

See, maybe we just speak the language differently, but I couldn't disagree more. I would always pronounce the pause before the "and". Pronouncing it otherwise makes it sound like "Spain and France" belong together. Think of the length of the pause between "Portugal" and "Spain" when you say that; is the pause between "Spain" and "and" really shorter? Because if it isn't, there needs to be a comma.

When I speak, the pauses are always identical;

Por-tu-gal,-Spain-and-France
1-and-ah-2-and-3

If I want to introduce a longer pause for emphasis, I add them consistently;

Por-tu-gal,-pause-Spain-pause-and-France-pause
1-and-ah-beat-2-beat-and-3-beat

But when I read the list with an Oxford comma, this is what I get;

Por-tu-gal,-Spain,-and-France
1-and-ah-2-beat-and-3

The Oxford comma is like an unnecessary and annoying speed bump that serve no other purpose than to break my rhythm and make me hit my head off the ceiling.

 

[opaltiger]

Because any case where the Oxford comma could resolve ambiguity could have the ambiguity resolved in another way. I view it as an intrusive and unnecessary punctuation point. Using the Oxford comma to maintain a list's order for stylistic reasons is essentially using poetic license on punctuation, which is something I don't hold with.

You're missing the point where the Oxford comma is and has been the norm for a long time now.

Also: I grant that ambiguity can often be resolved in other ways. But what if I don't want to resolve it in other ways? I like the Oxford comma because it doesn't make it necessary to jump through hoops simply to get a list right.

Some examples from the wiki page;

They went to Oregon with Betty, who was a maid and a cook.
They went to Oregon with Betty, both a maid and a cook.
They went to Oregon with Betty (a maid) and a cook.
They went to Oregon with Betty – a maid – and a cook.
They went to Oregon with the maid Betty and a cook.
They went to Oregon with Betty and a maid and a cook.
They went to Oregon with Betty, one maid and a cook.

Granted, but see my previous point.

When I speak, the pauses are always identical;

Por-tu-gal,-Spain-and-France
1-and-ah-2-and-3

If I want to introduce a longer pause for emphasis, I add them consistently;

Por-tu-gal,-pause-Spain-pause-and-France-pause
1-and-ah-beat-2-beat-and-3-beat

But when I read the list with an Oxford comma, this is what I get;

Por-tu-gal,-Spain,-and-France
1-and-ah-2-beat-and-3

The Oxford comma is like an unnecessary and annoying speed bump that serve no other purpose than to break my rhythm and make me hit my head off the ceiling.

Then I guess we just have different ideas as to how to pronounce lists.

 

[Ruby]

You're missing the point where the Oxford comma is and has been the norm for a long time now.

Also: I grant that ambiguity can often be resolved in other ways. But what if I don't want to resolve it in other ways? I like the Oxford comma because it doesn't make it necessary to jump through hoops simply to get a list right.

Game, set and match.