Talk:Comma quibbling: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→last comma: Quibble. |
|||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
<br>Note that Bob and Zach are meant to be shown as ''alone'' (as not part of a couple in this case). |
<br>Note that Bob and Zach are meant to be shown as ''alone'' (as not part of a couple in this case). |
||
<br>-- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 09:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC) |
<br>-- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 09:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
Sirs, I covered just this eventuality, methinks by the use of [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quibble quibbling] in the title ;-)<br> |
|||
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 18:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:02, 21 October 2014
last comma
The pubs people of IBM (where I worked quite a few years) taught me that a list in (American) English should be
"{ABC, DEF, G, and H}"
Any opinions?? --Walterpachl (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Eric Lipperts' blog entry states that the task excludes the Oxford comma. -Paddy3118 (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think your IBM buddies are correct, and leaving out the Oxford comma is imprecise. It bothered me enough that I immediately looked at this page to see if there was discussion. Oh well, the task specifically states that the list shall be constructed in this ambiguous and sometimes unintentionally funny (buzzfeed) way. Danaj (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I was taught (American English) that the Oxford comma was optional, but the list is better with it than without.
Consider a list of people (or couples):
- Albert and Alice, Bob, Cal and Cindy, Matt and Mandy, and Zach
- Albert and Alice, Bob, Cal and Cindy, Matt and Mandy, Zach
- Albert and Alice, Bob, Cal and Cindy, Matt and Mandy and Zach
where Zach (in the 3rd form) appears to be a threesome with Matt and Mandy.
Note that Bob and Zach are meant to be shown as alone (as not part of a couple in this case).
-- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Sirs, I covered just this eventuality, methinks by the use of quibbling in the title ;-)
--Paddy3118 (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)