They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and a cook.
Personally if I wanted to indicate that Betty was the maid I would put "a maid" between brackets or hyphens.
``` They went to Oregon with a cook and Betty, a maid. ```
They went to Oregon with Betty who was a maid and a cook.
They went to Oregon with Betty, the maid, and the cook.Betty could be the maid. English meaning depends partly on word order:
They went to Oregon with the maid, Betty, and the Cook.
They went to Oregon with the maid, the cook, and Betty
They went to Oregon with the maid, the cook and Betty
They went to Oregon with Betty the maid and the cook. They went to Oregon with Betty [a maid], and a cook.I get lazy with adding the comma before the "and" in list, and without fail I hear my grandmother/father/teachers pointing out how wrong I am for doing so. Same for my use of semicolons followed by "and" or "but".
I never realized the Oxford comma was even something up for debate.
((That (is (the (most natural) syntax))) and ((all (of us)) (should (switch (to it))))).
“a maid, and cook.”
In every counterexample that I have seen the ambiguity involves an appositive phrase set off by commas which is lurking nearby in the sentence.
Commas are the most common way to set off an appositive phrases but most sources say that em dashes and parenthesis are also acceptable.
This means you can use a simple rule and not have to worry about ambiguous lists: (1) always use the Oxford comma, and (2) if you need to set off an appositive phrase for an item in the list set it off with em dashes or parenthesis.
Yes, you can reorder the list to remove the ambiguity, but sometimes the order of the list matters. The serial comma should be used when necessary to remove ambiguity, and not used when it introduces ambiguity. Rewrite the sentence when necessary. Worth noting that this is the Oxford University Press's own style rule!
We invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin to the party. [three groups invited - strippers, a president, and a premier]
We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin to the party. [the president and premier are strippers]
Very different visual conjured by those two sentences.
"John helped his uncle Jack off a horse"
Two very different outcomes...
John helped his uncle, Jack, off a horse.
Because while speaking it I only pause after uncle and "Jack off a horse" together next. feels like there should be another pause after Jack?
We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin, to the party [two strippers, named JFK and Stalin]
if the goal is to minimize ambiguity.
There is no suggestion that one would do this in "regular" text.
That said:
We invited the stripper, JFK, and Stalin to the party.
We invited the stripper, JFK and Stalin to the party.
The supposed ambiguity is back. Although again there is no ambiguity to the reader. The juxtaposition of the two versions wouldn't work as a joke if there was any ambiguity
We invited the strippers, Krystal and Britney, to the party.
We invited the strippers, Krystal, and Britney, to the party.
And yes, if strippers is made singular, poor Krystal becomes Schrödinger‘s Stripper.
> "I'd like to thank: my mother, Ayn Rand and God".
A colon should not connect a verb and its objects; generally you need an independent clause before the colon (i.e., a clause that could be a complete sentence). One could properly say,
I'd like to thank the following: My mother, Ayn Rand and God.
> "We invited the strippers: JFK and Stalin, to the party"
Nope. A colon isn't a parenthetical in the middle of a sentence; that is, you can't continue the sentence after a colonic phrase (there's no such thing so I made up that term :D ). And again, the clause before that colon is not an independent clause. One can use parentheses (of course) or em dashes for parenthetical phrases:
We invited strippers (JFK and Stalin) to the party.
We invited strippers - JFK and Stalin - to the party.
We invited strippers to the party: JFK and Stalin!
Alice, the cook of the house and the guest were very chatty that evening.
Alice, the cook of the house, and the guest were very chatty that evening.
In the second, is Alice the cook of the house or not? This is the ambiguity of Oxford commas.
x = [
123,
456,
789,
];
It's so useful as a delimiter and anti-ambiguity machine, that you don't even need spaces for it to work! See CSV or Japanese.
.. if you care only about data communication and have no sense of beauty, aesthetics, rhythm or personality in writing.
x: [
123
456
789
] x = [ 123
, 456
, 789
]If so many consider the apostrophe so complex and confusing to the extent some grammarians are now advocating we abandon its possessive form then for the life of me I cannot see how we can expect more complex rules such as the I before E, except after C with its many exceptions ever to be understood by everyone.
Both the greengrocer's apostrophe (pl: DVDs not DVD's) and the possessive form of the apostrophe are about the simplest notions one can learn in English.
Yes, these rules have nuisances but I'm not referring to them but only their most common simplest forms. (By that I'd exclude unusual forms such as whether it's best to use 'greengrocer's apostrophe' or 'greengrocers' apostrophe' or that it doesn't matter. Or whether three 'Ss' should be used when using the apostrophe such as Kiss's Building — the name brazenly embellished in the frieze on a building near me.)
My marks in English at school were rarely ever much above pass grade but even I had no difficulty in understanding the possessive apostrophe. In primary school we were taught this simplest of rules by just asking "who owns it?" then drop in the apostrophe immediately thereafter.
Q: Who owns the bat? If only one boy owns it then the answer is "It's the boy's bat." If multiple boys own it then "It's the boys' bat."
I cannot think of any rule much simpler than this, same with the greengrocer's apostrophe where just adding an 's' sans any apostrophe is similarly straightforward.
It seems to me that teachers of English ought to actually learn to teach as they did when I was a kid.
It's clear to me we need to bring the population up speed on the basics before venturing into esoterica, for all but the cognoscenti the Oxford comma can wait.
I mean you do you but don't call this the Oxford Comma.
Or maybe I missed the joke.
I reject the validity of other traditions. Also: repent and join my religion.
https://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuat...?
I also enjoy how meaning of a whole sentence can be inverted by a bit of punctuation:
a. "A woman without her man is nothing."
b. "A woman: without her, man is nothing."
Works on contingency
No money down
Always the best example for missing punctuation!