I was trying to make a point relevant to Michael Berkovits's original question -- namely, whether these wordgames cast any light on the relationship between language and meaning. I didn't mean for what I said to target anyone's personal choices. If you actually stand in awe of my judgment, then I hereby authorize you to enjoy whatever wordgames you find most diverting.

-- AndrewGradman - 25 May 2008

I'll second the diversions comment!

-- AndrewWolstan - 24 May 2008

Andrew, even gimmicks can contain points relevant to the discussion, and both Amanda and Michael recognized the fact that whether one leaves the comma out or puts it in can produce confusion, depending on what message one wants to communicate. And you've gotta cut me some slack -- with all the new thinking that I've been doing this past week on a variety of legal issues that I've never thought much about before, I'm extremely receptive to diversions that provide amusement without making me think too much. Perhaps that's my shortcoming, but I'm sure I'm not the only one reading and posting to this website who is suffering from this shortcoming right now.

-- BarbPitman - 24 May 2008

Michael, I don't understand why the Ayn Rand example that Amanda cites would "show that the cases where the comma is necessary for clarity are exceptional, not the norm."

Is it because we less frequently say "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God" than say "To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God"?

Given that most English-speakers practice religions that command them to honor both mother and father, I would think that the former example is heard MORE frequently than the latter.

-- AndrewGradman - 23 May 2008

And the takeaway is that, book dedications aside, the use versus the omission of the serial comma have an equal potential to confuse. And that, for the second time in this thread, an anecdote passing for insight has instead shown how little we think about the gimmicks that get forwarded to us in mass emails.

-- AndrewGradman - 23 May 2008

Without having thought about it much, wouldn't the Ayn Rand example show that the cases where the comma is necessary for clarity are exceptional, and not the norm? Shouldn't the comma, then, be used only where it is necessary for clarity, and not in other cases? Couldn't educated writers be trusted to apply the comma on an "as-needed" basis, much the way that all writing involves making choices "in the moment" in order to enhance clarity in ways that wouldn't have been obvious in the abstract?

I can see at least one argument for the other side: Prescriptive rules are easy, unthinking ways to protect against potential ambiguity. For example, I didn't recognize dangling modifiers until my ears were trained to listen for them, probably in my teens (is that what you call them? A sentence like "While hanging from a tree, the banana Peter was holding dropped from his hands" - you grammar mavens will know the correct term for this incorrect construction). Oftentimes, there's no ambiguity, because it's obvious from context who is doing the action (and I'm pretty sure there are dangling constructions that don't sound as awkward as the one I wrote, though I couldn't think of any on the spot). But sometimes, there will be ambiguity, and unthinkingly applying an across-the-board rule helps protect against those times.

Before anyone boxes me in as an "anything goes" grammarian, I'm actually a staunch supporter of the comma. Also, I very much appreciate learning what it was called, through this thread. Thanks, Amanda and Thalia!

-- MichaelBerkovits - 23 May 2008