As Leila points out, some enfeebled, grammar-deficient numpty has decided that Oxford University no longer requires the Oxford Comma. True, it’s only their “branding” people who have been given the go-ahead to be tumshies, but you’d think that somebody would have at least given it a bit of thought!
I suppose that expecting marketing to actually, oh, consult a grammarian is asking a bit much? The Oxford Comma serves to separate items in a list. Without it, lists become unclear.
There are clearly three items in this list:
The fashionable colors are red, green, and blue.
There may be either two or three items in this list:
The fashionable colors are red, green and blue.
The first example is the “Oxford Comma” – it tells you that the list keeps on going and consists of three items. The “and” in there just makes things flow a bit better, but really is optional; it’s perfectly valid to say:
The fashionable colors are red, green, blue.
True, we may not be accustomed to hearing things spoken without that “and,” but I’ve certainly used sentence constructs without the optional “and” and had them not stand out as awkward – because I was using the Oxford Comma as it’s intended and knew that the silly “and” wasn’t the important bit; the Oxford Comma was!.
This rant isn’t about standards, nor resisting change in standards. This rant is about language as an exact tool, being used to convey an exact meaning. If it ceases to function in that manner – if you’re using finger-paints instead of a drafting pencil – then language becomes even more ambiguous and communication becomes more difficult. Leave out punctuation if you want to be intentionally obtuse, or poetic, or vague; if you want to communicate clearly, learn to use it properly!
What next? Will Oxford perhaps abandon the apostrophe? Will they not see the need to distinguish between plural, singular-posessive, and plural-posessive? I don’t know why I even bother. Numpties.
-D
I felt the same way when I saw a junior high English textbook that stated that the acceptable plural forms of cactus are cacti and cactuses. I felt betrayed, disappointed and outdated.
Yep – we’re losing the Latin plurals bit by bit. Indexes instead of indices? Octopuses instead of octopi? Even the “US English Dictionary” in my browser complains about the Latin variations.
Of course, when I write anything serious I use LaTeX and don’t spell-check – I use a dictionary (OED online) and only if I’m in doubt about the spelling will I look it up.
Has it been settled yet as to whether the plural of a computer mouse is mouses or mice? Alas, if only the computer mouse had been named “gerbil” instead.
While Oxford’s decision is no laughing matter, I have to laugh at the computer mouse comment above and the words “numpty/numpties”. I like that word and plan on using them. 😛
Wow. You put it better and more succinctly than when I researched it years ago and decided to drop the “Oxford comma.” Given your explanation I am going to have to reluctantly put it back. But thank you for the education.