One might observe that articles pertaining to the almighty Oxford comma have been especially scarce recently. This is due to various reasons, including but not probably limited to the moe-induced deterioration of my neurons. Also, I’ve run out of adjectives to put before the “Superiority” in the title, and no, screw you, “Superior” is a totally legit one.
In any case, I believe it would be wise to conclude this series, at least for the time being. I would say with a straight face if you could see my face right now that this group is dedicated to the pursuit of the Oxford comma’s benevolently dictatorial reign. That whole translation thing is merely an attempt to indoctrinate a particular, manageable group of people at once; divide and conquer, so to speak. However… what’s the phrase? To quote Thomas E. Dewey, you know that your future is still ahead of you.
So here is a summary of the previous articles’ arguments in favor of the superiority of the Oxford comma:
- The first article introduced the Oxford comma in general, allowing newcomers to bask in its radiant glory.
- The second and fourteenth appealed to ethos, pointing out that those organizations that endorse the Oxford comma can generally be called reputable, and those that oppose it can indeed generally be called disreputable, even acting upon a conflict of interest.
- The third, which was notably elaborated upon in the fourth, explored the lay argument often employed by both supporters and assailants of the Oxford comma, in which both sides state that their point of view is correct by means of ambiguity brought about with appositions in particular grammatical constructions; I demonstrated that there are situations which work for the argument of either side, but that mathematically, the usage of the Oxford comma is favorable in this regard.
- In the fifth, I explained how the absence of the Oxford comma, as well as inconsistency in using or neglecting it, leads to ambiguity when we have lists not including the word “and” or “or.”
- In the sixth, I cited a book explaining that only the Oxford comma accords with the order and cadence of sentences.
- In the seventh, I explained that the absence of the Oxford comma disturbs one’s reading.
- In the eighth, I explained the various ways in which the semicolon serves as an outward proof of the Oxford comma’s rightfulness.
- In the ninth and twelfth, I indicated that the Oxford comma is necessary in certain syntactic constructions surrounding three-item lists, including but not limited to those involving direct address.
- In the tenth, I explained that being consistent with the Oxford comma is important, especially due to the fact that it matches the flow of spoken sentences.
- In the eleventh, I demonstrated that, while I often argue in favor of rearranging items in a list to achieve optimum clarity, the Oxford comma is also superior when a list abides by a certain order.
- In the thirteenth, I proved that the figures of speech asyndeton and polysyndeton serve as proponents to the noble Oxford comma’s cause.
And now for something completely different: In contrast to what recent translation updates might lead you to believe, we’ve been making progress as usual, just not visible progress, as we display on the website only our progress in terms of raw translation. We’ve been doing checking/proofreading/testing/fgfgf, so you can rest with at least the satisfaction of knowing that the time between the translation’s conclusion and the actual release will be shortened.