I recently found the world’s first coherent YouTube comment:

We should give a fuck about an oxford comma.

This was printed in an issue of the Times: “highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector.”

Notice, that it appears to be describing Nelson Mandela as an 800-year-old dildo collecting demigod.

With an Oxford Comma:

“highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod, and a dildo collector.”

The comma after “demigod” changes EVERYTHING.

-Eranmane

The Oxford comma can resolve ambiguity. On Twitter, commas and other punctuation are included in the 140 character maximum. I still use the Oxford comma. Newspapers often drop it in an attempt to save space.

Who do they think they’re fooling? With today’s software, any decent layout editor can account for a few more characters.

If you think the Oxford comma is redundant, try copy editing your own work. Redundant punctuation doesn’t hold a candle to redundant prose.

What do you think? Should Oxford commas be used and/or avoided?

Advertisements