When I was learning how to write more sophisticated sentences (the kind with lists of things), I was always told to place a comma after each item in the list. For example: I like BMWs, Audis, Ferraris, and Jaguars. To me, this makes a lot of sense grammatically. It is clear exactly what the pieces of the list are: BMWs Audis Ferraris Jaguars. Consider this following usage: I like BMWs, Audis, Ferraris and Jaguars. There seems in imbalance here - that Ferraris and Jaguars together are like Audis and BMWs individually. Yet this second construction is the "correct" usage in modern English.
Now imagine you were talking about law firms. I like Frederick and Sons, George Brothers, LeRoy and Claude and Smith and Jones. Excuse me??? Which of the last four go together? If you sit down and analyze the sentence, knowing the rules, you can ascertain that LeRoy and Claude must be a pair and that Smith and Jones work together, but should it take that much work? Wouldn't a comma after Claude assist tremendously in clarifying that point? Or imagine you have some more complex phrase within the list. I like horses, cats and dogs, pigs, giraffes or capybaras. If you're reading that quickly, and can't see where the sentence is going, you are likely to stumble over the end of it, putting the emphases in the wrong places in your head. It simply doesn't make sense not to separate each entity of the list. I simply cannot see the upside to leaving out the comma after the penultimate item in the list.
I can promise further abuse directed towards the stupidity of the English language.
I agree with you that the serial comma is pretty cool, and it can definitely get rid of some law firm-related ambiguity, but keep in mind that it can also introduce confusion into the sentence:
ReplyDeleteI went to the zoo with Emily, a nurse, and Spencer.
Versus:
I went to the zoo with Emily, a nurse and Spencer.
Is Emily a nurse, or are we talking about three people? The second sentence, without the serial comma, is unambiguous, while the first sentence requires us to look at the context.
I agree with you that we're probably better off using the serial comma than omitting it, and that it can make reading and understanding sentences pretty difficult sometimes, but it must be remembered that there do exist some instances in which it creates difficulty of its own.
I agree with you in principle, but your point about the law firms is fallacious. When items in a series require internal commas (the names of the law firms) it is appropriate to use semicolons to separate the items in the series.
ReplyDeleteI use several law firms: Smith, Jones and James; Franklin, Marshall and Sons; and Wagner, Waner, Waner, Kiner, and Clemente.