the grammar debate

[The Fury]

pearljammer said:

The Fury said:
I don't like commas before conjuctions. I was taught never to do it and even though many stupid websites list you can, I see no reason to ever do it. Except for the use of a comma to show a part of a sentence which can be ignored or is redundent, the name of which I cannot remember.

The Oxford comma has its usages. Though, like you, I often elect not to use it as it, more often than not, seems to be either useless or confusing. I think a lot of people chaulk it up to be a style preference, essentially.

I pulled this example from wikipedia:

To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.

There is ambiguity about the writer's parentage, because Ayn Rand and God can be read as in apposition to my parents, leading the reader to believe that the writer refers to Ayn Rand and God as his or her parents. A comma before and removes the ambiguity:

To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God.

The ambiguity is not there for me, to me the extra comma adds a different aspect to it. The first sentence is fine as I can see and recognise that it's a list, in that the writer's parents, Ayn Rand and God are 3 parts of that list. The comma makes me read it in a different way so the second comma I read as a list of 2, the writer's parents (who's apparent name is Ayn Rand) and God. This is the way I was taught.

Out of that wikipedia example also, I wouldn't put a comma in front of the 'because' like that example has in the sentence after parentage. I don't understand the need for it.