Sits, burps and farts

The use of the comma in a series has become a hot topic at the Olde (sic) Saratoga Brewery.

The modern, thereby sloppy and imprecise, failure to use a comma before the "and" is being defended in the same way is the theory that Antarctica sea ice is going melt and flood New York City because of global warming - both are wrong and matters of religious faith, see prior blog entries.

The instigator of the comma problem is Kim, who shall remain nameless, who insists the comma before the "and" in the series is "wrong."

This curious notion came from some teacher who is running a class for inmates, or some such thing, and is a true believer in Lynne Truss' Eats, Shoots & Leaves. The position posited by the Kim Camp, which was joined by Dale, who should know better, is the book establishes the proper use is that in a series, there is no comma before "and." Something about not being necessary and should not be used. [Apparently, Lynne is too bored to even use the word "and," preferring to use "&."]

Rather than succumb to pure logic about the subject, we few, we tipsy, we English fans entered the democratic voting method used by Al Gore to prove reality. For example: 4 times in the past 15 years 100 percent of all scientists agreed with me. (Yes, he said basically that). Thus, if 2 out of 3 beer drinkers don't like the comma, then, there you have it. Democracy at its finest. However, outside the Tasting Room, reality may differ.

As I noted previously in these electron-based pages, if there were a vote of scientists and journalists in 1976, we would be in Global Cooling right now. I am not much a fan of avoiding the essence of the argument in favor of the opinions of others, but let me provide some living proof that the comma before the "and" is traditional and logical.

The book Eats, Shoots & Leaves was written by Lynne Truss. Permit me to quote an excerpt of Lynne that is found on the Eats, Shoots & Leaves web site.

Talk to the Hand

The Utter Bloody Rudeness of Everyday Life
(or six good reasons to stay home and bolt the door)

LYNNE TRUSS

Introduction – When Push Comes to Shove

...However, just as my book on punctuation was fundamentally about finding oneself mysteriously at snapping point about something that seemed a tad trivial compared with war, famine, and the imminent overthrow of Western civilisation, so is Talk to the Hand. I just want to describe and analyse an automatic eruption of outrage and frustration that can at best cloud an otherwise lovely day, and at worst make you resolve to chuck yourself off the nearest bridge....

If the author actually said that the comma should not be used, Truss fails to practice what she wrote, edited, and preaches.

This blog, being dedicated to ferreting out sources for use in dialectic, rather than voting on consensus opinion, cannot in good faith use the politician's approach to logic and attack the messenger for being a hypocrite, liar, and fundamentalist Christian. Indeed, I sympathize with anyone taking on grammar as a subject of discourse. So, let us leave, abandon, and set aside Truss' subconscious preference for that comma and see what others say - working my way up the scale of authorities.

I went to the Oxford U site and was referred to the University of Calgary's English web site where I located, found, and reprint part of the punctuation primer:

How do I use commas with items in a series?

1. Use a comma to separate items in a series.

   Example:
   The Calgary summer is short, sunny, and windy.
   
   NOTE:
   The comma before "and" is preferred, but not mandatory.
   

2. Use commas to separate two or more items modifying the same noun.

   Example:
   Calgarians eagerly await their short, sunny, windy summer.
   

Well, the comma is "preferred." So, it is not "wrong," is it? Why is it preferred, I will venture to show you later. Why is it not mandatory - because Americans insist of watering down composition because we want to be inclusive of dolts, dummies, and dupes. Of note, the other sources do not even give wiggle room by stating there is a "preference."

"OK," you are thinking, "That's just Oxford and Calgary."

Well, since we are in the mode of quoting others in order to support a position, rather than understanding the matter, let me point out another source.

The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation

Rule 1	To avoid confusion, use commas to separate words and word groups with a series of three or more.
	Example	My $10,000,000 estate is to be split among my husband, daughter, son, and nephew.
	NOTE	Omitting the comma after son would indicate that the son and nephew would have to split one-third of the estate.

I hope the NOTE demonstrates the preference for the comma. Lawyers are comma sensitive. Take a look back at the sentence. In a proper analysis of the sentence, each person receives one fourth of the estate.

If you take out the "unnecessary" comma: My $10,000,000 estate is to be split among my husband, daughter, son and nephew.

Ooops.

Now what? Are we to assume each is to get 1/4 of the estate because we found Eats, Shoots and Leaves in the chambers of the drafting lawyer? Under traditional use, the failure to put in the comma means the son and nephew share one third of the estate. Sloppy writing makes for long legal careers in litigation.

As an aside, this is a good example of why "legalese" routinely appears. Lawyers will add something to make sure there is no confusion resulting from language: My $10,000,000 estate is to be split among my husband, daughter, son, and nephew in four equal shares in common.

Here is a story of an interesting sentence where the comma error will cost millions of dollars. From the Globe and Mail:

...Rogers (a large communications company in Canada) thought it had a five-year deal with Aliant Inc. to string Rogers' cable lines across thousands of utility poles in the Maritimes for an annual fee of $9.60 per pole. But early last year, Rogers was informed that the contract was being cancelled and the rates were going up. Impossible, Rogers thought, since its contract was iron-clad until the spring of 2007 and could potentially be renewed for another five years.

Armed with the rules of grammar and punctuation, Aliant disagreed. The construction of a single sentence in the 14-page contract allowed the entire deal to be scrapped with only one-year's notice, the company argued.

Language buffs take note — Page 7 of the contract states: The agreement “shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.”

Rogers' intent in 2002 was to lock into a long-term deal of at least five years. But when regulators with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) parsed the wording, they reached another conclusion.

The validity of the contract and the millions of dollars at stake all came down to one point — the second comma in the sentence.

This Roger's story was quite the buzz in Toronto where folks seem more attuned to the Queen's English. I fear in the U.S., one would need to call an expert witness on the use of commas in order to sort out the confusion - back to experts voting on reality, rather than understanding what is going on. Let us return to the argument, at hand.

Permit me to apply the coup de grace: William Strunk's The Elements of Style:

In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last.

Thus write,

red, white, and blue honest, energetic, but headstrong He opened the letter, read it, and made a note of its contents.

This is also the usage of the Government Printing Office and of the Oxford University Press.

In the names of business firms the last comma is omitted, as

Brown, Shipley and Company

The abbreviation etc., even if only a single term comes before it, is always preceded by a comma.

==================

My only objection to the Strunk observations is the use of the word "usage," which is pedantic, unnecessary, and smarmy usage. It is much better usage to use "use" in place of "usage."