Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Did you read more than the cover? The publisher's note at the beginning of the book explains that's the British style and that they decided not to switch to the American form of punctuation when the book was published here even though they knew it would cause some consternation. You just proved that to be correct.

You are demanding the Chilton comma. And in both examples you cite, it is absolutely necessary, because there is a possibility that the second and third words can be read as specific examples applying to the first (eating shoots and leaves, my parents are Ayn Rand and God).

However, there are many cases where the Chilton comma can be reasonably omitted for stylistic reasons. Absolutism in demanding it is not a good thing. I've cast and read sentences where no ambiguity in the series named is possible and including it becomes an intrusion.

I am not sure what you mean by "ungrammatical". Your example, "I would like to thank my parents, Ayn Rand and God", is syntactically well-formed. But it is semantically wrong in a content-dependent manner, because it does not (unless its author is delusional) mean what it says. Grammar goes beyond syntax, but I am not accustomed to thinking of sentences that are semantically wrong as being ungrammatical unless they CANNOT be right, i.e. their semantic wrongness is invariant across all possible substitutions of syntactically-equivalent content. And although I cannot produce an example on the spur of the moment, it strikes me that most such must be syntactically sub-optimal at least, if not outright wrong.

Oh no, "grammar"--one of the classic debates of semiotics!

Uh, Brad, read the back of the book before you bash the title. It's a line taken directly from a joke. And actually, there shouldn't be any commas, because Pandas actually eat shoots and leaves. They don't eat, shoots, and leaves.

How can it be that "including it becomes an intrusion" unless one is a anglophile snob ? I mean it's not like its length or its use of ink makes its use intrusive.

Which, speaking of hte next post, reminds me that,
last time I was there (1977 I think) there was a bronze bell in the Washington Post building that claimed to have been given to the Post and it's publisher.

From the Chicago Manual of Style -
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/tools.html

Q. Hello. In the sentence “I went to the store to buy eggs, milk and cheese” do you put a comma after “milk”? What is the standard now for comma usage after the second-to-last item? I have seen such sentences both with and without the comma. Thanks.

A. Chicago style is to put a comma there (it’s called a “serial” comma). There are times when that comma is necessary to avoid awkwardness or ambiguity: “My favorite combinations are green and yellow, blue and purple and black and red.” Since it is sometimes needed, and is never wrong, the simplest way to impose consistency without having to stop and think about each instance is to form a habit of adding the serial comma.

Don't know about the Chilton comma, on this side of the Atlantic it's known as the Oxford comma (OUP insists on it, most other publishers don't).
I think it's more to the point that it's a Joke, y'know? The whole point is that the Ignorant Creator of the encyclopedia entry on pandas has Put In A Comma Wrongly. It kind of loses force if they nonetheless manage to get another, and much debated, point on commas precisely correct.

First of all, I didn't claim it was always an intrusion, but that there could be occasions when including it was an intrusion. As a linguist and poet, I can assure you, that final comma can be an anchor, and sometimes that is desired and other times it is not. In fiction, Cormac McCarthy, for one, eschews them. That may or may not be a good thing, but they are missing by his intentional choice and not by error. And it is a large part of why his sentences read in the way they do, much to the chagrin of some of his readers and the delight of others. As to expository writing, I'll see if I can come up with an example for you.

My basic point on this remains: When not needed for sense, inclusion of the Chilton comma is a stylistic choice

Agreed, serial comma and Oxford comma are other names for it. And publishers having policies on it is fine, for the sake of their own collective sanity. Hemingway argued with Chuckie Scribner about commas in his own work. Of course, he also ending up shooting himself. Go figure.

I happen to think that except in a pedestrian effort at writing, no punctuation mark should be included or unincluded without intent.

Periods: inside or outside parentheses?

"(Like this.)"? Or "(Like this)."?

Periods/stops inside parentheses: depends on whether the contents of the parenthesis form a complete sentence or not. If they do then yes, if not, then not.

I think it depends on the situation, although Strunk & White's demands that final comma. For example, I won't ever write "red, white, and blue", because I wouldn't write "white, and blue", and the meaning I intend is clear without the comma. But when the extra comma is needed for clarity, I'll stick it in there.

talking about punctuation, I believe the comma after the quotation mark should be actually within the quotation mark. "I would like to thank [...] and God," not "[...]and God,".

If you talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk too.

"First of all, there definitely needs to be a comma after "Shoots"."

Missing the entire point of the joke, Brad. I blogged on the book, the joke, and related points, on November 29th of 2003, by the way.

I'm always use the serial comma, but a while back I ran across a case where it added confusion instead of reducing it.

He has changed the order and clarified the meaning, but DailyKos used to have this on his "About Me" page:

"My heroes are my late father, Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero, and Cesar Chavez."

The first time I read this, I thought "Archbishop Oscar Romero" was an appositive modifying "my late father," i.e. that he had two heros: his late father Archbishop Romero and Cesar Chavez.

Without the serial comma, it is actually clearer that he has three heros, not two, that his father and the Archbishop are two different people.

I was amused that this example is so similar to the famous "my parents, Ayn Rand and God," that an example of the serial comma adding confusion so nearly mirrors the canonical example of the lack of the comma adding confusion.

The proper thing to do is to eliminate the `and', making
sure to replace it with a comma if not already present:
"eats, shoots, leaves"

No need for the `and' at all ...

This is one of The Fool's pet peeves. It is obvious that the comma should also be used for the last item in a series. Why create an arbitrary exception? It makes no sense at all.

We all realize that Truss has chosen to be delicate, yes? The Australian version of the joke involves a wombat, and "roots" rather than "shoots." Takes on a whole different meaning.

Other people have pointed out the joke reference and the British tendency to leave out the last comma, so I won't expand on those. But the point of punctuation is clarity of meaning. The examples given by other commenters above demonstrate there are times when clarity is aided by putting a final comma in and times when doing so hinders clarity. So it makes perfect sense not to have a hard and fast rule; consistency is not as worthy a goal as clarity. In general, I won't put an Oxford/Chilton/ comma in unless semantic clarity demands it, or if in speech there is a definite pause at that point in the sentence.

As for reported speech, the punctuation should always be inside the quote marks: "What?" she asked. "I don't know," he replied. There is no clarity to be gained by being inconsistent here.

Ginger Yellow,

Isn't the inside-outside punctuation difference a difference between British and US punctuation standards? Question marks would go inside in either case but the Brits, I think, would leave the period and perhaps the comma out? I'm not clear on that point - just a vague impression.

K Harris, Brits leave punctuation inside quotes, just like us. Criminy, people, they don't do everything differently.

Brad writes:

"First of all, there definitely needs to be a comma after "Shoots". Do we, after all, wish to live in a world in which the sentence, "I would like to thank my parents, Ayn Rand and God", is grammatical?"

Granny notes with mild approval the comma outside the brackets, though she is usually a mad traditionalist. Granny thinks that commas have just as much duty as brackets to make set-theoretical sense.

Ginger, I don't like your example. I can see why "What?" has a question mark inside the quotes. She is clearly asking a question.

But I say "I don't know" with distressing regularity, and I can assure you that I never "speak" a comma!

Sometimes thoughtfully: "I don't know. Maybe Bush really is just that stupid."
Sometimes teasingly: "Oh, I don't know? Maybe if you watch your sister this afternoon I could find time to take you to the mall."
Sometimes (too often) in frustration: "I don't know! Back off."

But never "I don't know,"???

Three cheers for the serial comma!

The blasted serial comma comments went on and on forever and ever and never stopped.
The blasted serial comma comments went on and on, forever and ever and never stopped.
The blasted serial comma comments went on and on, forever and ever, and never stopped.

Which is correct?

And yes, I know this is not a true series.

And yes, I know you should never start a sentence with "and", or can you? ;)

Trying to pump your comments, are you? Well what better way than with a nice grammar post! Now we all wade in with nostrils flaring.

To wade in on the unresolveable and unending (but fun) debate: yes on the comma after "Rand," no on the comma wandering aimlessly beyond the terminal quotes. The Brits, who have an immoral and loose society, do it that way. You don't want the US to become loose and immoral, do you?

"K Harris, Brits leave punctuation inside quotes, just like us. Criminy, people, they don't do everything differently."

Your latter sentence is a true statement. Your former sentence is a false statement, and amazingly so. It's not difficult to check this in three seconds via Google, even if one has, apparently, never read a British book, newspaper, magazine, or any other writing whatsover, in one's life.

Missed you over the weekend. I agree on the comma. I see so many things, like "tire's" at the landfill that drive me up the wall. It is nice to know a few people remember and try to use the language as we were taught. What are kids being taught today?

Looks like I left out a comma! Oh, well.

F.Y.I. -- AP style for serial commas:

"IN A SERIES: Use commas to separate elements in a series, but do not put a comma before the conjunction in a simple series: 'The flag is red, white and blue.' 'He would nominate Tom, Dick or Harry.'

"Put a comma before the concluding conjunction in a series, however, if an integral element of the series requires a conjunction: 'I had orange juice, toast, and ham and eggs for breakfast.'

"Use a comma also before the concluding conjunction in a complex series of phrases: 'The main points to consider are whether the athletes are skillful enough to compete, whether they have the stamina to endure the training, and whether they have the proper mental attitude.'"

Your "eats, shoots, and leaves" would get me fired.

Heard on Wait Wait don't tell me...
Easily.

[post update]

Brad, pull yourself together.

The joke is that one extra comma entirely changes the meaning of the sentence (not one missing comma, mind you).

"The panda eats, shoots and leaves" or "The panda eats, shoots, and leaves" both mean the same thing and both are wrong. That's the whole point of the book. That you've got to be careful about comma use.

What was meant was "the panda eats shoots and leaves."

The comma changes "shoots" and "leaves" from nouns to adverbs/verbs.

The subtle point of being really frickin annoyed with your "nit" picking is that you're picking a nit that simply isn't there. If you want to make a point about serial commas then fine, but there really isn't anything wrong with the title of the book.

I promise.

Gary Farber writes:

"Your former sentence is a false statement, and amazingly so. It's not difficult to check this in three seconds via Google, even if one has, apparently, never read a British book, newspaper, magazine, or any other writing whatsover, in one's life."

It sounds as though Gary Farber didn't use his three seconds on Google to very good effect, and is himself amazingly misguided about British English usage.

The Economist styleguide (available online at economist.com) provides a characteristically neat summary, distinguishing three cases:

1. If an extract ends with a full stop or question-mark, put the punctuation before the closing inverted commas.

2. If a complete sentence in quotes comes at the end of a larger sentence, the final stop should be inside the inverted commas.

3. If the quotation does not include any punctuation, the closing inverted commas should precede any punctuation marks that the sentence requires.

It may be that the third case is different from US usage, but it is only in that third case that a British writer would naturally punctuate outside the inverted commas. To suggest, though, that it is universal practice to punctuate outside rather than inside is quite simply wrong.

"The panda eats, shoots and leaves": In this case "shoots" and "leaves" are nouns--they are what the panda eats. The comma serves as a breath marker to put a little extra stress on what the panda eats. The structure of the sentence is like that of, "He jumps, high and long". "Shoots" and "leaves" (and why is the "S" in "Shoots" capitalized in this sentence?!) are the direct objects of the verb "eats".

I don't follow. If "shoots and leaves" are direct objects, they should be directly linked to the verb, not misleadingly separated from it with the comma; if you really want to indicate an emphasis, why not a dash? And how is the sentence "He jumps, high and long" similar in structure? Aren't "high" and "long" adjectives and not nouns? Or do you mean he competes in the high jump and the long jump? If so, the sentence fails to get the point across at all.

Have you actually read the book? Perhaps panda is a codename for private US security forces who arrive at a place, have a quick bite, shoot up the locals a bit, and then leave.

Have you actually read the book? Perhaps panda is a codename for private US security forces who arrive at a place, have a quick bite, shoot up the locals a bit, and then leave.

Have you actually read the book? Perhaps panda is a codename for private US security forces who arrive at a place, have a quick bite, shoot up the locals a bit, and then leave.

Have you actually read the book? Perhaps panda is a codename for private US security forces who arrive at a place, have a quick bite, shoot up the locals a bit, and then leave.

I am so sorry for the multiple (and trite) posts. How embarrassing. Keep getting a "busy signal".

I am very confused. You make it clear that you think that organisms which eat shoots and leaves should be arrested in some places when you write "the second and third...are identical." evidently not just as ink on paper or pixels on screens but also in their legal and moral implications.

But you also write "the panda should be arrested for disturbing the peace ... here but not there". where is here and where is there ? I mean, to put it bluntly, where the hell are you ?

Are you still in China arguing that panda's should be arrested for eating their natural diet in their native country, or are you back in Berkeley and arguing that it is all well and good for pandas to eat shoots and leaves in China but if you catch them nibbling the boarders of Lucas court you gonna call the cops ?

Here and there are either here or there these days what with the iternet and all that.

"The panda eats, shoots and leaves": In this case "shoots" and "leaves" are nouns--they are what the panda eats. The comma serves as a breath marker to put a little extra stress on what the panda eats. The structure of the sentence is like that of, "He jumps, high and long".

Drifting ever farther afield here, methinks. "High" and "long" are adverbs acting as modifiers of the verb "jump", an entirely different construct. But keep trying, we wait with bated breath markers. :)

One of the wonderful things about English is how flexible it is: how can one complain about a language in which every noun can be verbed?

Treetop:
A better way to avoid the apposition problem is to offset the appositive with something other than commas—such as dashes or parentheses.

Ginger Yellow:
I do not agree that there is no clarity gained by excluding the punctuation marks. There may not be much of a problem if one is trying to transcribe spoken language but quotation marks are also used when one is reproducing written text and here there is a distortion because the punctuation was not in the original.

guaurilla: that's another matter. I was referring to direct speech.

As to the question of whether Brits punctuate inside or outside: in practice many if not most Brits punctuate outside. This is because few are taught grammar. Every English teacher, every grammar book and pretty much every style guide in the country will tell you to punctuate inside. By the way, when I say punctuate inside, I mean if the phrase in the quotation has punctuation, then it goes inside. But if for example there is no full stop at the end of the phrase, it either goes after the quote marks or is replaced with a comma, if the sentence doesn't end where the quote does. Eg He said the phrase: "young African elephant". BUT "Young African elephant," he said.

a different chris: how often do you speak a semi-colon? Or an apostrophe? Commas serve many purposes, only one of which is to indicate a pause. As a basic example, it is considered mandatory to insert a comma between "Hi" and "Chris" in the phrase "Hi, Chris!", because it uses the vocative. But most of the time there is no pause when using the vocative.

Finally, I'd say that Brad is wrong about the second phrase, "eats, shoots and leaves". In British English at least, this usage is at best problematic. His analogy to "jumps, high and long" is irrelevant because "high" and "long" are adverbs. The former phrase is trying to use "eats" as both an indirect and a direct verb at the same time. It might just about be acceptable to use it thus: "Eats: shoots and leaves".

"The panda eats, shoots and leaves": In this case "shoots" and "leaves" are nouns--they are what the panda eats. The comma serves as a breath marker to put a little extra stress on what the panda eats. ======

But #4 is equally ambiguous. The shoots in "The panda eats, shoots, and leaves" could also be read as a noun with breath markers: The panda feasts on sprouts (in case you wondered about its diet) and walks away. This example has only one use, and that's to make the case for the antiquated German mode of capitalizing all nouns.

Ginger Yellow wrote:

"As to the question of whether Brits punctuate inside or outside: in practice many if not most Brits punctuate outside. This is because few are taught grammar. Every English teacher, every grammar book and pretty much every style guide in the country will tell you to punctuate inside."

I can't argue with the premise, but I think the conclusion is mistaken. Few Brits are taught grammar (which is the context in which the book which is the subject of this thread was written and needs to be understood), but my observation is that this makes people very nervous of letting punctuation creep away from the ends of words. That includes letting inverted commas intervene between word and punctuation, and so leads those who are not self-confident (which is most people) to be more likely to put punctuation inside when it should be out than the other way around.

The update clarifies where the confusion lies. There is a conflict here between punctuation as presentational markup (telling the reader how to speak the text) and punctuation as structural markup (telling the reader how to parse the text).

The comma in Brad's second sentence is pure presentational markup. In the first and third the comma, or lack of one, is structural.

For Heaven's sakes, the question is clarity. The panda obviously doesn't need to shoot anything to eat leaves. OTOH, having shot, the panda best leave, unless he's one of those mushy pandas from Venus who actually wants to cuddle and stay the night. It all kinda depends on what he shot, but most of us know that a comma won't help there- a full colon, or possibly an exclamation point, are what is needed. OMG, this just gets worse and worse.....

Ah, the, range, of, an, economist's, mind, is, truly, astonishing,,--!

The Wombat "joke" which I think was the original, since it shows up in DEC VAX documentation from about 1979, is actually "Eats, Roots & Shoots".
"Shoot" being Australian for departure, "shooting through" being permanent departure.

Hmmmmm interesting

zapraszamy po czadowe gry java na gry java,
po dzwonki polifoniczne do dzwonki
polifoniczne oraz po komputery laptopy notebooki
laptopy.
You can find the best nokia ringtones and logo at
nokia ringtone, get the best melodies for your
nokia mobile phone and get cool nokia logo at nokia logo and backgrounds now
 

!!!

Dic mihi solum facta, domina - Just the facts, ma'am

Per aspera ad astra - Through the thorns to the stars

Illegitimis nil carborundum - Don't let the bastards grind you down

Aut insanit homo, aut versus facit - The fellow is either mad or he is composing verses

Liberate Te Ex Inferis - Save yourself from hell