I'm old and was an English major at one time. Therefore this is my bible:
I'm old and was an English major at one time. Therefore this is my bible:
wae said:Oh. And "data" is plural.
That's just lore.
...
Okay, I'll go now
I think there are some places where an Oxford comma helps with readability:
I got up this morning, combed my hair, and then walked to the bus.
I don’t think it’s necessary when listing three short item: red, white and blue.
Duke said:JG Pasterjak said:pres589 (djronnebaum) said:Can we *please* start an argument about one space behind a period or two? I'm solidly in the two spaces camp myself, not that it matters, of course.
I can start AND end this argument pretty quick. No major style guide recommends two spaces. Basically the age of word processors killed the double space.
Don't care. I literally could not care less (see what I did there?).
It's more readable with a single-space break between words, a double-space break between sentences, and a line break between paragraphs.
JG Pasterjak said:
Typically, though, a sentence needing an Oxford comma could be restructured to be even more clear and easy to digest by just reworking it so you don't need the Oxford at all.I respectfully disagree. If you're listing things, which is typically the reason for needing an Oxford comma, convoluting the sentence just to avoid the extra comma seems silly to me.
It's like Winston Churchill saying "Up with this, I will not put," just to avoid ending the sentence with a preposition.
The thing with most of our regular writers, though, is our writing styles are VERY similar to our speaking styles. And the oxford comma is not typically something that translates well to our natural communication styles. So part of the process is keeping the voices and brand of our writers consistent.
Now, the Shatner comma, on the, other, hand...
Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:I'm old and was an English major at one time. Therefore this is my bible:
We use AP style with certain exceptions. The online version is great since it allows you to search through Q&As with the AP style expert.
In reply to David S. Wallens :
Again, I respectfully disagree. To me, that "white and blue" has a vague ambiguity about whether it is two items (one white, one blue) or one item that is both white and blue.
Just avoiding an extra comma does not justify introducing a potential ambiguity.
I have noticed the Google auto-correct function on my phone corrects to the Oxford comma. It seems a bit excessive, but I roll with it.
Sometime around 20 years ago the word "versus" morphed into "verse" and that one is the source of a few facial tics I have.
But the biggest for me is "I seen" or "we seen". Just out of the blue about 10 years ago it just sprang out of nowhere in the Pacific Northwest. My parents, who had never said anything like that my whole life were saying things like "Oh, do you know what we seen the other day?"
Duke said:I don't know if it appears much in written grammar, but this bugs the berk out of me:
"Do you want to come with?"
With what? With you? With a big grin? With a case of beer?
Finish your damn sentence.
Ha! When I read that sentence I immediately thought, with what..?
I got a million of em:
Things happen on purpose.
But things do not happen ON accident. They happen BY accident.
In reply to Sarah Young :
Plus it’s supplemented by the Official GRM Style Guide. (Seriously, we do have one–mostly technical terms.)
Grammar and spelling seem to be covered pretty well here, by people far more adept than I at the English language and all it's technical aspects.
Design, on the other hand, is my forte. But, if I start in on design-related things that annoy me, I will be here forever and probably end up in a mental health facility in the process. 
Someone just said one to me...
"I don't got no..."
As in, "I don't got no work, I don't got no car"...
Yikes!
If someone were to tell me "I have no work", I'd probably have to hire him!
The use of less to mean fewer and which, when referring to people. The meaning of the sentence remains, but it sounds awkward and wrong to me.
lateapexer said:The use of less to mean fewer and which, when referring to people. The meaning of the sentence remains, but it sounds awkward and wrong to me.
Oh, yes, I forgot about that one. For the record, Meijer has express checkouts that call for "12 items or fewer".
Sonic said:"Needs replaced" or the like. It's not hard to write "needs replacing" or "needs to be replaced"
Tell me you're from Pennsylvania without telling me you're from Pennsylvania 
See also "what for?" As in "What for motor you got in that thing?" I think that one is pretty clearly a German derived PA Dutch thing.
msterbeau said:Grammar and spelling seem to be covered pretty well here, by people far more adept than I at the English language and all it's technical aspects.
Design, on the other hand, is my forte. But, if I start in on design-related things that annoy me, I will be here forever and probably end up in a mental health facility in the process.
I don't want to push you too far, but maybe you could spare one design-related annoyance? I don't think anyone's shared one so far.
Sarah Young said:pres589 (djronnebaum) said:Also the Oxford Comma; hot, or not? I say hot.
Sorry that our pubs don't use it! We're in the camp of erring on the side of fewer commas. Have been, I believe, since before I started here. But I'm not opposed to the Oxford comma.
I brought our original reference, The Chicago Manual of Style, to the pubs from my English-major background. David, who came to us as a journalism major, was an AP adherent; he eventually convinced me to use it, though it was a hard sell. I did, and still do, consider Chicago's solutions to be generally more elegant. That includes the Oxford, or serial, comma. Win some, lose some.
As for the original topic, my absolute worst gripe is its/it's, particularly the fact that Apple's predictive logic invariably autocorrects my correct usage to the wrong one as I hit Send on a text. D'oh!
Margie
In reply to Sarah Young :
Similar to your grunge typeface with the repeating G, I hate seeing cheap faux-stone tile on the wall where every fourth or sixteenth tile has identical "imperfections" printed into it.
For those of us who write contracts for a living the Oxford Comma is essential.
There is a particular case involving a labor dispute whereby the lack of the Oxford Comma cost the company 10 million dollars.
I will give you the short version;
The contract read "storing, packing for shipment or distribution"
The lack of the comma made "packing for shipment and distribution" a single thing when the intent was for them to be two separate things. It should have read "storing, packing for shipment, or distribution"
Because the lack of the comma made two things, one thing, it was no longer eligible for the exemption under state law. The net result was the company involved now owed employees back overtime..............to the tune of 10mil.
So if what your writing is two separate things "health, and safety" it needs and Oxford Comma. If it's one thing "health and safety" then it does not.
SV reX said:Someone just said one to me...
"I don't got no..."
"Buddy the next word out of your mouth better be 'satisfaction' or you can turn around and leave my job site."
Has stood the test of time and highly recommended - a lousy $6 bucks from Amazon.
Marjorie Suddard said:Sarah Young said:pres589 (djronnebaum) said:Also the Oxford Comma; hot, or not? I say hot.
Sorry that our pubs don't use it! We're in the camp of erring on the side of fewer commas. Have been, I believe, since before I started here. But I'm not opposed to the Oxford comma.
I brought our original reference, The Chicago Manual of Style, to the pubs from my English-major background. David, who came to us as a journalism major, was an AP adherent; he eventually convinced me to use it, though it was a hard sell. I did, and still do, consider Chicago's solutions to be generally more elegant. That includes the Oxford, or serial, comma. Win some, lose some.
As for the original topic, my absolute worst gripe is its/it's, particularly the fact that Apple's predictive logic invariably autocorrects my correct usage to the wrong one as I hit Send on a text. D'oh!
Margie
Regarding it’s vs. its, my new fave is its’.
I see it every now and then. I figure it’s like answering D, all of the above.
My one and only personal peeve and I'm not sure it is a case of grammar but it definitely involves style:
The use of "Functionality" to describe everyday or basic things.
The quality of being functional or "functionality" was made popular by the software industry but no one uses the word mal-functionality and so I tend to find it's wide spread use pretentious.
"The new parts restored the brake system's functionality" versus just saying "after installing the new parts the brakes now function properly"
Note I have an aversion to all things pretentious.
David S. Wallens said:Regarding it’s vs. its, my new fave is its’.
I see it every now and then. I figure it’s like answering D, all of the above.
That is the plural possessive of "it". Fewer letters to type than "their".
In reply to Marjorie Suddard :
Pure ignorance and desperation are underrated.............many a defendant is walking the street by using these tactics.
You'll need to log in to post.
