There are only two kinds of people in the world: those who use the Oxford comma, and those who don’t. I’m not a willing user, even to the peril of a lowered grade in school.
An instructor we suffered through in the Dark Ages at Highlands University laid out some arcane rules we were to follow in doing our homework. One was that we use the serial (or Oxford or Harvard) comma whenever necessary. “It looks neater,” she said.
Well big whoopee! We now write things on the basis of neat looks! In addition to working harder on neatness, I had a tough time choosing the right sentence structure that made my prose flow without having to insert that wretched Harvard-Oxford comma.
That comma is the punctuation mark that goes before “and” or “or” in a list of three or more. Here’s an example, but this should not be construed as an endorsement. Let’s say that I enjoy three things for breakfast: eggs, toast and coffee. It’s clear that these three are distinct. The Oxford person would insert a comma before the “and” and render it this way: “The three things I enjoy are eggs, toast, and coffee.” Did you notice the comma in front of “and”?
Ostensibly, this practice serves to avoid confusion. I contend it’s redundant: why use both “and” and a comma? In years of chasing commas and other marks of punctuation I’ve been asked countless times whether I’d recommend using a comma before “and” in such a sentence, or whether I’d prefer to “do it correctly” (my choice of words, not theirs).
The English language is complex, as are its rules. I think it’s natural for readers to ask, as they’ve done many times, when and whether to insert that comma in front of the “and.”
I’m always happy to provide input, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I am right. I believe that for almost every question about how to express things, there are two or more answers. I would opt for omitting the final comma, but I reluctantly admit that in rare cases, well, we ought to include it.
One writer used this example: “We invited the strippers, Donald Trump and Vlad Putin to the party.” And that was followed by “This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God.”
Or consider, “And there was the country-western singer who ‘was joined by his two ex-wives, Kris Kristofferson and Waylon Jennings.’”
In the stripper allusion, we’re identifying the two statesmen as the bump-and-grind performers, not as two people who were invited, in addition to the strippers.
And in the second example, the book dedication implies that Ayn Rand, and God are the author’s parents. Without performing all sorts of verbal gymnastics, how else could a person render those identifications?
Mary Norris, the author of “Between You & Me,” which she describes as “some thoughts on the humble comma,” is a New Yorker proofreader. She too argues that “a comma preceding ‘and’ is redundant.”
Norris helpfully mentions, “If you were reading aloud, the comma would suggest when to take a breath.”
• • •
What gall!
How much longer does she plan to be on this earth?
My outrage and inquiry stem from a close encounter of the worst kind Thursday night. As I drove on Hot Springs Boulevard, I came close to helping create another obituary for the Optic. I proofread all the obits but prefer not to have anything to do with the obit almost necessitated by a late-arriving state hospital employee.
As one approaches the Behavioral Health Institute, the speed limit goes from 45 to 35. I slowed down as I noticed a woman close to the middle of the street but yards away from any crosswalk.
Was she inebriated? Confused? Injured? Distracted? Obviously she was none of these things, merely a woman, dressed for working the night shift, walking across . . . and for whom crosswalks are merely suggestions.
She kept going, and I believe she never even saw me.
I wondered whether the jaywalker was simply in an “I dare you” mood and not about to back off so she’d feel a bit of moral superiority and be able to claim, “He deliberately hit me.”
Any driver who fails to take an avoidable accident seriously could be in lots of trouble. There’s the inevitable guilt, shame and liability that follow.
I believe I did my part, slowing almost to a stop and pulling way over to the side of the road. Did she notice me as she forged her way to work with a drivers-be-damned attitude?
The entire scene must not have taken only a few seconds, but they were harrowing seconds.
I hope she now realizes how close she came to becoming a statistic. I also hope she reads this item and recognizes herself.
• • •
What gall (part II)
People need to draw salaries commensurate with their jobs. That’s why few people flinched at the $350,000 salary Bob Frank drew as the president of the University of New Mexico. However, he’s chosen to return to the classroom and will continue to receive mega-bucks as a department chair.
As far as we know, regents, public and students believe he did well in promoting New Mexico’s flagship university, taking the reins of a huge institution with thousands of employees and many more students.
But does the step down to the classroom entitle him to keep the salary he earned as president? It’s safe to say that many of the senior-tenured faculty at UNM will need to work several years in the classroom, labs and libraries in order to come even close to what Bob Frank will make — in the classroom — in just one year.
Some people spend a lifetime trying to earn what Bob Frank will draw in just one year. Could this stroke of benevolence cause a procession of other, lesser-paid faculty to try to negotiate their own salaries upward?