[Framers] OT: Punctuation question

[Johan Anglemark]

Could we please take the religious discussions elsewhere than this list?

-j

On 2019-01-08 12:55, Tom Beiswenger wrote:
> It's more than "Oxford style." The use of a serial comma is covered in the Chicago Manual of Style. Per entry 5.50: "In a series consisting of three or more elements, the elements are separated by commas. When a conjunction joins the last two elements in a series, a comma is used before the conjunction." The British "The Economist Style Guide" specifically directs writers to NOT use a serial comma.
> 
> I have followed the serial comma rule since I went from being a newspaper journalist to being a technical writer nearly 30 years ago. My personal opinion is that the serial comma can be optional, but whether it is used or no used must be consistent throughout any document or book. We have been using it for more than 30 years. I see no need to change.
> 
> 
> Tom Beiswenger
> Project Manager, Manager IB Technical Documentation
> 
> Emhart Glass Inc.
> 74 Kahler Road North • Horseheads NY 14845 • USA
> Telephone 1 607 735 2551 • Mobile +1 607 769 4779
> Fax +1 607 735 2601
> tom.beiswenger at emhartglass.com
> www.bucheremhartglass.com
> www.bucherindustries.com
> Privacy Policy: www.bucheremhartglass.com/privacy
> 
> -----"Framers" <framers-bounces+tom.beiswenger=emhartglass.com at lists.frameusers.com> wrote: -----
> To: An email list for people using Adobe FrameMaker software. <framers at lists.frameusers.com>
> From: Stephen Rickaby
> Sent by: "Framers"
> Date: 01/08/2019 05:10AM
> Subject: Re: [Framers] OT: Punctuation question
> 
> At 09:33 +0000 8/1/19, shuttie27 wrote:
> 
>> Two points:The "Oxford style" is to include the comma, not to omit it. It was so named because the Oxford University Press, almost alone among British publishers, mandated it in their style guide. Secondly, as for its being essential to avoid ambiguity, tell that to all the other British and other publishers who don't use it, and generations of British and other writers who have never used it.
> 
> You are correct; I miswrote. 'Oxford Guide to Style', R M Ritter (an American gentleman, by the way), OUP 2002, pp 121-122. This cites many instances where the serial comma is necessary to avoid ambiguity, but admits that omitting it is often done in US and UK English, but then goes on to suggest that you might as well bung it in anyway.
> 
> However, following the publication of this book there was a good deal of spirited debate on the topic. As far as I remember (and I communicated with Mr Ritter at the time but have mislaid the emails), the consensus, based on several existing styles guides, was that 'UK style' was to omit the serial comma unless by so doing ambiguity was introduced, while US style was always to include it.
> 
> Here for example is the relevant part of the British Psycholoigcal Society's style guide:
> 
> [Commas are...] Not required before 'and' in a list of items, unless to avoid an ambiguity or to clarify where one item ends and another begins (particularly where the items are lengthy). Examples:
> 
> * ..in the professional work of clinical, forensic and educational psychologists.
> 
> * The Bishops of Winchester, and Bath and Wells [two bishops, not three]
> 
> Or this from the Thomson Learning style guide:
> 
> * Do not impose serial commas in lists of three or more items except to avoid ambiguity.
> 
> Or from The Economist style guide:
> 
> * Lists: with lists do not put a comma before 'and' at the end of a sequence of items unless one of the items includes another 'and'.
> 
> Thus:
> 
> 'The doctor suggested an aspirin, half a grapefruit and a cup of broth. But he ordered scrambled eggs, whisky and soda, and a selection from the trolley.'
> 


-- 
Johan Anglemark

Tel: 0708-65 10 88