There are so many times the Oxford comma prevents ambiguity. I have yet to see a counterexample. Commas separate list entries, don't change it for the last one.

▲ n4r9 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Wikipedia has an interesting example where it's still ambiguous:

  They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and a cook.

It's not clear whether Betty is the maid. But tbh removing the comma doesn't help either.

Personally if I wanted to indicate that Betty was the maid I would put "a maid" between brackets or hyphens.

▲ dheera 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

This sounds like a case where we should just change the syntax. If Betty is the maid it should be written:

    They went to Oregon with Betty [a maid], and a cook.

▲

1659447091 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is how I was taught. Use ( ) or -- -- here and the Oxford comma for list of 3 or more.

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.

▲

dullcrisp 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

(They (went (to Oregon) (with ((Betty (a maid)) and (a cook))))).

((That (is (the (most natural) syntax))) and ((all (of us)) (should (switch (to it))))).

	▲	thom 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Many years ago working on natural language to SQL, when we had ambiguities this is how we’d clarify things with the user (albeit with the minimal amount of brackets necessary).
	▲	readthenotes1 3 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It looks like you might have learned how to diagram a sentence as a youth
	▲	yellowapple 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It seems you're speaking with a Lisp :P

▲ hellojesus 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Or just switch the order if Betty is the maid and you don't want to provide additional context:

``` They went to Oregon with a cook and Betty, a maid. ```

▲ KolenCh 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It eliminated some ambiguity. It should be quite self evident that even without an example it is quite impossible to eliminate all ambiguity (it’s a feature of human language.) The more important property is that it never introduces more ambiguity. Ie at worst it doesn’t help, but not making it worse.

▲

pianom4n 2 days ago | parent [-]

It did introduce ambiguity though. Without the comma it is 100% clear that sentence lists 3 people.

	▲	mikebenfield a day ago \| parent [-]
		Practically that would be very likely to be the case to the reader, but grammatically no, it's still ambiguous. > They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid and a cook. Betty could be both a maid and a cook. So there is still ambiguity.

▲ rawgabbit 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If Betty was the maid and the cook, I would write...

     They went to Oregon with Betty who was a maid and a cook.

If it was three people, I would write...

     They went to Oregon with Betty, the maid, and the cook.

▲ mmooss 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

Still ambiguous.

  They went to Oregon with the maid, the cook, and Betty
  They went to Oregon with the maid, the cook and Betty

In the former, I suppose the maid might be the cook also. The latter moves more easily and with less ambiguity.

	▲	rawgabbit 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		If Betty was the maid, I would write… `They went to Oregon with Betty the maid and the cook.`

▲ kstrauser 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The maid implies there was just one. Who travels with their only maid? Who will keep the manor lights on?

	▲	3 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲ 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲ luxuryballs 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

“a maid and cook.”

“a maid, and cook.”

▲ forgetfreeman 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As written it is perfectly clear that Betty is neither the maid nor the cook, neither of whom the author bothered to name in this sentence. If that wasn't the author's intention they should grammar better.

	▲	3 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲ GoodJokes 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲ tzs 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> There are so many times the Oxford comma prevents ambiguity. I have yet to see a counterexample.

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.

▲ stephencanon 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"I'd like to thank my mother, Ayn Rand, and God" is the usual example.

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!

▲ alistairSH 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I always heard this one...

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.

▲

comprev 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

"John helped his uncle, Jack off a horse"

"John helped his uncle Jack off a horse"

Two very different outcomes...

	▲	h4ch1 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		shouldn't there be another comma after Jack? 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?

▲

PaulDavisThe1st 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'd prefer:

We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin, to the party [two strippers, named JFK and Stalin]

if the goal is to minimize ambiguity.

▲

al_borland 3 days ago | parent [-]

I can see it being tiresome to read text where the author is continuously interjecting clarification with brackets.

	▲	PaulDavisThe1st 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The square-bracket clarifications here are meta-text designed to absolutely clarify the intended reading of the preceding text, so that the reader can contrast their understanding with the intended one. There is no suggestion that one would do this in "regular" text.

▲

robertoandred 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If JFK and Stalin were strippers, there’d be a comma after Stalin to denote the parenthetical clause.

▲

Avshalom 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean first off: no the exact same image is conjured because we are reading this in context of knowing who jfk and stalin are and we know they aren't strippers and all language is contextual.

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

	▲	alistairSH 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Fine, I’ll be boring… 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.

▲ yellowapple 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Removing the Oxford comma not only fails to resolve the ambiguity, but introduces yet more ambiguity by implying Ayn Rand to be God.

▲ Joker_vD 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Just put the colon there if you need to introduce a list, it's one of its functions. "I'd like to thank: my mother, Ayn Rand and God". The same goes for that "two strippers" example: "We invited the strippers: JFK and Stalin, to the party".

	▲	mmooss 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I want you to know that I would only write this in a discussion nitpicking about grammar: :) > "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.` Also, these examples leave ambiguity. Your mom could be Ayn Rand, and if she was, then you might very well think she was God, or be making a joke about it. > "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.` A proper colon might be as follows: `We invited strippers to the party: JFK and Stalin!` But I'd put an em dash there (and to heck with LLMs and their em dash overusage).

▲ bennettnate5 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's common in English writing to interject additional details in on a noun by using a phrase separated with commas. I've personally found Oxford commas can in certain cases make it unclear whether you're interjecting or not, like so:

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.

	▲	function_seven 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		If you’re one to omit the Oxford comma in your writing, then how do I resolve the ambiguity in your first example?

▲ t0mek 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Only tangentially related (but hey, it's HN) - I'm so happy about the support/requirements for trailing commas in the modern language syntax:

It makes editing such a list so much easier. Also, the commit diffs are cleaner (you don't need to add comma to the last element when appending a new one).

▲ echohack5 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The oxford comma debate is so annoying because it clearly has nothing but advantages. Removing commas from a delimited list does nothing to resolve ambiguity, whether lexicographically or syntactically.

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.

	▲	mmooss 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> The oxford comma debate is so annoying because it clearly has nothing but advantages. .. if you care only about data communication and have no sense of beauty, aesthetics, rhythm or personality in writing.

▲ Izkata 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My very first programming language doesn't use commas:

▲ black_knight 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I like this:

	▲	tommy_axle 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Nah, prepending will lead to a messier diff than the parent example.
	▲	3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲ ajdude 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

My heroes are my parents, Superman and Wonder Woman!

	▲	rationalist 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		If Superman and Wonder Woman were the parents, wouldn't a dash or colon be more appropriate than a comma?