What are you reading?

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

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.

Just because the Oxford comma "has been the norm for a long time now" doesn't mean anything, especially since it has always been hotly debated by linguists and there has never even been a plurality of opinion, let alone a majority or even a consensus. For centuries, allsentenceswerewrittenlikethisanditwasconsideredasignofaweakwriterifscriptwasquicktoofferupitsmeaningindeedtherewasnopunctuationandonewasexpectedtoworktediouslyforconsiderablelengthsoftimetounderstandwhatmessagethewriterwastryingtoconveythisbeingespeciallyunhelpfulwhenwordsranintoeachotherinsuchawaythattheyformednewordsandonehadtoworkoutwhichwordsthewriterwasactuallyusing. But now we have spacing and punctuation. Once, colons could be used to end sentences just like a full stop, but now that would look ridiculous:

And just because you don't feel like resolving ambiguity doesn't mean that you should stick a comma where it has no business being. If someone didn't feel like punctuating at all, is that a valid argument for accepting non-punctuation as a convention in English writing? The word "and" serves the purpose of separating the penultimate and final items in a list. The inclusion of the Oxford comma is completely unnecessary, because any ambiguity created in a list can be resolved by other means. It's a lazy little mark for people who can't put in the effort of resolving ambiguity through proper means.

I'm also greatly amused by the fact that you support the Oxford comma because "it doesn't make it necessary to jump through hoops simply to get a list right", yet you claimed that omitting the Oxford comma was part of "the general trend in parts of the English speaking world towards a more "simplified" language". After all, what's more simple than a language where rather than going to the bother of reordering a list you have left ambiguous, you simply add an unnecessary comma.

 

[shy ♡]

 

[Tailsy]

All I'm getting is that you don't like the Oxford comma because it's lazy.

I don't think that's a very good reason, somehow.

 

[Ruby]

Just because the Oxford comma "has been the norm for a long time now" doesn't mean anything, especially since it has always been hotly debated by linguists and there has never even been a plurality of opinion, let alone a majority or even a consensus. For centuries, allsentenceswerewrittenlikethisanditwasconsideredasignofaweakwriterifscriptwasquicktoofferupitsmeaningindeedtherewasnopunctuationandonewasexpectedtoworktediouslyforconsiderablelengthsoftimetounderstandwhatmessagethewriterwastryingtoconveythisbeingespeciallyunhelpfulwhenwordsranintoeachotherinsuchawaythattheyformednewordsandonehadtoworkoutwhichwordsthewriterwasactuallyusing. But now we have spacing and punctuation. Once, colons could be used to end sentences just like a full stop, but now that would look ridiculous:

And just because you don't feel like resolving ambiguity doesn't mean that you should stick a comma where it has no business being. If someone didn't feel like punctuating at all, is that a valid argument for accepting non-punctuation as a convention in English writing? The word "and" serves the purpose of separating the penultimate and final items in a list. The inclusion of the Oxford comma is completely unnecessary, because any ambiguity created in a list can be resolved by other means. It's a lazy little mark for people who can't put in the effort of resolving ambiguity through proper means.

I'm also greatly amused by the fact that you support the Oxford comma because "it doesn't make it necessary to jump through hoops simply to get a list right", yet you claimed that omitting the Oxford comma was part of "the general trend in parts of the English speaking world towards a more "simplified" language". After all, what's more simple than a language where rather than going to the bother of reordering a list you have left ambiguous, you simply add an unnecessary comma.

All right, I'm going to wade into this now. Your argument seems very weak. I can hardly follow it. First of all, let's establish that the Oxford comma has existed in the English language for hundreds and hundreds of years, and for most of that time it appears not to have been "hotly debated" by anyone. Here are some examples.

From Dickens: anxious aunts, experienced nurses, and doctors of profound wisdom (1838)
Swift: abounding in virtue, honour, truth, and good sense (1726)
Bunyan: snares, lines, angles, hooks, and nets (1678)
Chaucer: Dispence, Business, and Jealousy (1387?)

In your first paragraph you imply that convention has no authority, but then you call the Oxford comma "a comma where it has no business being." What authority are you appealing to there, if not convention? Now I am not saying the Oxford comma is always needed - simple lists can often do without it - but nor is it useless or lazy. Rearranging the sentence can never be an exact alternative, because rearranging changes, among other things, the rhythm (the "beats," intonation, and so on), which you were so worried about in another post. Even if rearranging were a exact alternative, you haven't said why it would be in any way preferable to using a comma.

 

[opaltiger]

Ruby has addressed the rest of your post quite nicely, but:

eatly amused by the fact that you support the Oxford comma because "it doesn't make it necessary to jump through hoops simply to get a list right", yet you claimed that omitting the Oxford comma was part of "the general trend in parts of the English speaking world towards a more "simplified" language". After all, what's more simple than a language where rather than going to the bother of reordering a list you have left ambiguous, you simply add an unnecessary comma.

You are quoting me out of context. I said the second quote in reference purely to the presence of the comma, not considering any other alternatives. In that context, omitting the comma is the more simplified option.

I am rather mystified by your vehemence in opposing this supposed "unnecessary" comma. I could just as easily turn your argument around: why would you go about unnecessarily reordering a list you have left ambiguous when you could simply add a comma? I grant that at times, reordering a list may result in a better structure over all. But there are also times - in the majority, I think - when the Oxford comma is a simpler, more elegant, and overall superior solution.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Actually, yes, you're right, I'm wrong and the Oxford comma is a perfectly acceptable punctuation point when used properly.

 

[Ruby]

Yay! That's very sportsmanlike of you.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

I'm sick of being so pig-headed all the time, it just makes me even more annoying than I am anyway. I'm trying to learn to just admit when I'm wrong.

 

[Adriane]

I'm at a loss as to why it's not mandatory by conventions, personally.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

I got back into Pratchett just long enough to read Mort and Reaper Man, then I went to the library and picked up Anathem by Neal Stephenson, The Bromeliad by Terry Pratchett, which I've been meaning to reread for a long time, and the first two Shannara books. Also got King's The Gunslinger in Kilkenny and I'm going to read all the above in that order. I've stopped trying to predict what books I'll read after that, I always get distracted by the arrival of more books.

 

[Equinoxe]

I went to the library today and got Pride and Prejudice (I saw the newest movie version and unexpectedly kind of liked it).
It is honestly pretty good even though it's not what I usually read.


By the way, have any of you noticed that most sci-fi books (almost all) that are directed at more mature audiences have really rancid porn-ish sex scenes? I don't mind sex in my books but most of these are just plain disgusting.
Makes me wonder if all sci-fi authors are lonely guys fantasizing about huge galactic jugs or something. :V

 

[opaltiger]

By the way, have any of you noticed that most sci-fi books (almost all) that are directed at more mature audiences have really rancid porn-ish sex scenes? I don't mind sex in my books but most of these are just plain disgusting.
Makes me wonder if all sci-fi authors are lonely guys fantasizing about huge galactic jugs or something. :V

... no? What sort of science fiction have you been reading?

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Whatever it is doesn't sound too great. I've never read any science fiction with any sex-scenes actually, unless you count Dan Brown because half the science he uses in his stories is complete fiction, ho ho ho.

 

[Ruby]

He's clearly been reading H.G. Wells.

 

[Dannichu]

A friend of mine and I were bored last week and went around town, going into all the charity shops, finding Mills & Boon books (trashy romances, you know the ones) and trying to find the dirtiest/cheesiest sex scenes we could.

...we were politely asked to leave a couple of the shops after reading the scenes aloud.

More respectably, I'm rereading my way through the works of Virginia Woolf, and am currently on Orlando.

 

[opaltiger]

Quicksilver, Neal Stephenson and We, Yevgeny Zamyatin.

 

[Ruby]

We, Yevgeny Zamyatin.

Tell us if Brave New World ripped this off as much as people say it did.

 

[Equinoxe]

I read pretty much whatever there is on the sci-fi shelf (which is too small btw) that seems even remotely interesting based on the covers.

Whatever it is doesn't sound too great.

You're right about that. I'd like to read more sci-fi stuff but pretty much everything at our library is utter crap. There are like, two or three books or series I actually like there.

He's clearly been reading H.G. Wells.

Actually, I haven't. I'm not sure if I've ever read his books.


where is the quality stuff hiding

 

[opaltiger]

Tell us if Brave New World ripped this off as much as people say it did.

So far? I don't see it. I mean, yes, okay, both are dystopian novels. We is the first of its kind, every subsequent dystopian novel owes much to it. But Brave New World definitely brings its own qualities to the genre.

Speaking of, there is a quote on the back cover in which Orwell proclaims We superior to Brave New World. I suspect he did not much like Huxley.

where is the quality stuff hiding

Le Guin!

 

[Ruby]

Speaking of, there is a quote on the back cover in which Orwell proclaims We superior to Brave New World. I suspect he did not much like Huxley.

I've read that essay, actually. I don't think Orwell disliked Huxley (who was his French teacher for a year, you know), but they obviously had rather different ideas of what dangers faced society. Orwell thought We was just more relevant than Brave New World.