ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

sarcastrophe

this exists. it's currently our IT department's thing

that oxford comma cartoon is shite

besides which, caption for the second picture s/b: "we invited the strippers jfk and stalin" viz no comma at all

(unless it's also attempting to claim that jfk and stalin are the only two strippers in all history, and here are their names) (which is silly, because there have in fact been other strippers)

There was Theodore Roosevelt that time at Spearmint Rhino, for example.

caption for the second picture s/b: "we invited the strippers jfk and stalin" viz no comma at all

not in my view, the sentence contains a natural pause there which should be marked by a comma

its a restrictive apposition and it needs a comma

or restrictive appositive i guess

oh sorry--i guess its the non-restrictives appositives that require the commas. this one could go either way

unless it's also attempting to claim that jfk and stalin are the only two strippers in all history, and here are their names

the gag does seem to work better where the examples exhaust the set, e.g. "i'd like to thank my parents, god and ayn rand", or merle haggard's ex wives:

http://problogservice.com/images/Merle-Haggard-ex-wives-kris-kristofferson-robert-duval.jpg

it's only a restrictive appositive if jfk and stalin are the only two strippers ever

in which case it doesnt require a comma

but the comma is what makes it sound like a restrictive apposition, instead of a list?

appositive w/evah

the natural pause argument is the "rossian comma", i guess, after the new yorker's harold ross, who was mad for the little monsters -- in this kind of instance it falls, because it's "misleading" in the restrictive/non-restrictive dimension (further problematised by having to choose with of two deliberately silly counterfactual situations the cartoonists are intending to conjure with)

"we invited the strippers jfk and stalin" <-- there are other strippers but we didn't invite em
"we invited the strippers, jfk and stalin" <-- there are no other strippers

as always clarity can be achieved otherwise we invited jfk, stalin and the strippers unless that confuses things by suggesting jfk is a collective comprising stalin and the strippers imagine if that were the case we could do a cartoon of it

(ps i am v.crap and muddly at proper actual technical grammatical parsing when it comes to naming the names of parts of speech what they're doing, so just blerg through any clause where i deploy these)

i think youve got it backwards mark--a restrictive appositive, which would limit the prior noun, has no comma, while a nonrestrictive appositive, which just modifies the noun parenthetically, does have a comma

or wait

never mind

i give up

intricate subtlety can always be achieved in english: unambiguous clarity much more rarely

max, i think the definitive rules are more complex than that: i'm going to check fowler when i get home (as i say, i'm hopeless with the technical terms)

I don't think the commas imply that JFK and Stalin are the only two strippers in human history, just that they are the strippers being discussed. (I inferred a context in which "the strippers" were already part of the story.)

(Where were you guys when I posted this cartoon on the "comma roundtable" thread last week?)

"the only two strippers in human history" <-- this is funnier tho, hence by implication must be what a cartoon is striving for

mark's first post was right

I agree with mark s the editor

The editor mark s, rather.

(but if were talking about a publication where mark s was the editor, I'd say "the editor, mark s")

p sure it should be "We invited the strippers, which JFK and Stalin."

"The festival featured Emerson, Lake and Palmer, The Captain and Tennile and Hall and Oates"

Emerson, Lake and Palmer s/b ELP

Wha? We're still jammin' on that Oxford comma gig?

Oxford comma 4 lyfe. What's the argument about treating the rules of grammar like some mystical, unbreakable canon, as opposed to a tool where one should strive for usage that provides the best clarity and readability in written works? Say in US English, usage of the oxford comma, or putting some punctuation outside of quotation marks. Why "radical," man instead of "radical", man? I find that a little ugly and completely senseless.

great

What I have yet to hear is a good argument for not using the oxford comma.

unnecessary

He said a good argument.

and then I said unecessary didn't I

better to leave flexibility for actual meaningful deployment than mere slavish ticcy habit -- it isn't routinely necessary for meaning so you're just wasting it using it except when it ensures a specified clarity

would be my suggested good argument

as a sub i started out an ultra-rossian but for purposes of lilt and indicated rhythm after a time i began to prefer writers who cut back on commas

So a jewellery site says a cheap fashion ring is made of 'lead and nickel free metal'. If they wanted to actually say it was made of a metal that is free of lead and nickel, should they have said 'lead- and nickel-free metal'? Or is what they had acceptable? I couldn't parse it well.

It needs the dashes. Saying it the other way seems like some rather second- or third-rate kind of grammar.

pp otm

maybe it is made of lead and other metals that are not nickel

or the nickel and lead they put into their ring is free

"made of zircon and porkchop free metal."

They also said it was silver in the description but they meant silver in colour.

This is where "silver-toned" is useful. Like "chocolate-flavored."

"lead- and nickel-free metal" is correct, but sometimes people who are not in the business of caring about text (including purveyors of cheap fashion rings) are SO dubious about hyphens. They think it can make them look fussy and uncool. Many who ARE in the text business are dubious too. You have to say, "Either you rewrite this gibberish from scratch or we're gonna need to bring on the hyphens."

anybody read after deadline from the NYT? it's not super challenging but it's fun anyway

"We found no differences between both groups"

Isn't "both" wrong when "between" already tells you there sre only 2 groups? I would use "the groups."

"between" doesn't strictly imply two according to Merriam-Webster:

There is a persistent but unfounded notion that between can be used only of two items and that among must be used for more than two. Between has been used of more than two since Old English; it is especially appropriate to denote a one-to-one relationship, regardless of the number of items. It can be used when the number is unspecified <economic cooperation between nations>, when more than two are enumerated <between you and me and the lamppost> <partitioned between Austria, Prussia, and Russia — Nathaniel Benchley>, and even when only one item is mentioned (but repetition is implied) <pausing between every sentence to rap the floor — George Eliot>. Among is more appropriate where the emphasis is on distribution rather than individual relationships <discontent among the peasants>. When among is automatically chosen for more than two, English idiom may be strained <a worthy book that nevertheless falls among many stools — John Simon> <the author alternates among modern slang, clichés and quotes from literary giants — A. H. Johnston>.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/between