The Oxford Comma is Superior Subs

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.

This article essentially serves as an extension of S01E02, in which I delved into various organizations’ policies on the Oxford comma, because my elitist philosophy compels me to have others look toward authority for their answers, especially when I’m authority.

I discussed the most important and grammarful organizations such as The Chicago Manual of Style, the Modern Language Association, and the American Psychological Association. It goes without saying that the most significant one, the most noble one, the bastion of hope, righteousness, and inconceivable bravery within hostile British territory, the glorious basilica of all language matters, Oxford University, is among these. And don’t get me started on that rumor that they denounced it, because a certain iniquitous spy within the palace’s grounds who made such an arrogant assertion did not nearly represent the infallibility of Oxford in so doing, and he may rightfully be labeled as literally Hitler.

Now, in addition to these, we can find numerous examples of grammatical justice in our everyday lives. In short, a decisive majority of reputable sources employ the Oxford comma when compared to those that do not. Every dictionary, online or in the scary world, that I’ve read—and one might assume that I’ve read an inordinate quantity—uses the comma. Oxford Dictionary included, obviously. I would link to more, but they tend to have hella ads and my browser is only so resilient.

Obviously, an arbitrary selection of anecdotal examples would prove insufficient with a grammatical structure that can exist in practically any context, but when it comes to any piece of trustworthy anything written in English, the Oxford comma prevails by a noticeable margin, and you can see this for yourself if you masochistically subject yourself to my habit of analyzing such matters.

Onto relatively more tangible instances: Despite the egocentric tendency of journalist companies to drop the comma, there exist some (the more reputable, of course), that do not pursue this infamous policy. At the least, even such organizations as British The Guardian recognize that its absence may cause ambiguity, and while I do not support this promiscuous flip-flopping, it serves as an implicit yearning for truth and a step in the right direction. The comma also makes fluctuating appearances at The Atlantic, but I got no idea what’s going on with those guys.

And this is a trite argument of which I do not entirely approve, but for the sake of assuming some sort of comprehensiveness, Shakespeare used it. I also contemplated discussing translations of the Bible with regard to this matter, but because of reasons, never mind.

Finally, and most importantly, how often does one see a zealous advocate against the Oxford comma? Those who support it do so because of its brilliant and innate righteousness, while those who fail to use it are more inclined to turn a blind, conniving eye, much like the contrast in volume between those who are the victims and those who are the proponents of social injustices upon which I will not elaborate. I naturally rely upon ethos with this case, for you may be aware that I more readily than the average individual immerse myself into the most unwelcoming depths of the Internet in which productive arguments on the subject of grammar occur. If ever you find somebody whose fervor on this matter parallels my own, and who also opposes the Oxford comma, please point them in my general direction.

In a previous article, I explained how the existence of indefinite lists of items serves as another proof of the Oxford comma’s superiority. In rhetoric, this method of linking items without the use of a conjunction is referred to as asyndeton. This word comes from the Greek prefix a-, meaning “not,” and syndé, meaning “link.” Why does this matter? Because screw you Greek roots are hella important stop judging my run-on sentence.

Anyway, as any professional old white guy can tell you, the construction of the above word leads one to believe that it comes with a counterpart, and it does: polysyndeton. This refers to a list in which many or all of the items are linked with a conjunction. You can find some good examples here, but I prefer breakfast examples as usual:

“I found plates stuffed with tons of pancakes and eggs and waffles and sausages.”

One can also place commas between every two items:

“I found plates stuffed with tons of pancakes, and eggs, and waffles, and sausages.”

This technique is useful not only for elaborate language as above, but also to signify that a character is speaking in a stream of consciousness, thinking up a new item each moment in a manner characteristic of Hinata’s speech.

Polysyndeton is as much a supporter of the Oxford comma as asyndeton. Like Mr. Semicolon, it proves that a comma should logically exist after the penultimate item of a list, because each item, in contrast to a common argument by heathens, is grammatically the same. The “and” or “or” does exist in the previous items, but is omitted by ellipsis. And what if the naysayer decides to go crazy omit the final comma still?

“I found plates stuffed with tons of pancakes, and eggs, and waffles and sausages.”

Now we don’t know whether “waffles and eggs” is/are one item or two. Obviously, this problem is unavoidable with polysyndeton because that “and” mess will remain after any rearrangement.

In short, the infidels want you to believe that the final item of a list is special because it gets an “and” or “or” instead of a comma, but we can prove that that isn’t true by citing asyndeton, which is ellipsis overload, and polysyndeton, which is ellipsis underload. All grammatical items are equal!

OXFORD COMMA 2012

In a previous article, I alluded to a particular problem with failing to use the Oxford comma in three-word lists: Some syntactic arrangements result in a noun immediately preceding a list, which makes the veritable listness of the list uncertain. The example sentence used was, “In the midst of chaos, terror and despair were beacons of hope.” That’s the inferior version, of course.

But as the omniscient deity that is Lord Oxford Comma descended upon me recently, He exhibited yet again His limitless benevolence by enlightening me with another possibility. The above arrangement can exist with other types of phrases as well, namely direct address.

The following is a popular image embodying this instance. Well, it’s popular among people who spend a few hours each morning looking up various tidbits concerning the Oxford comma, which is a noteworthy demographic, I’m sure.Anyway:

For a more reasonable (a.k.a. boooring) example, “I invited Jeff, Joe and John.” Evidently, this lack of clarity can arise in numerous instances, making it all the more pernicious if that final comma is absent.

This article is too short.

You know who had very feminine handwriting? John Quincy Adams. Seriously, this is his signature: