[BRussell]

I'm looking for some thoughts and links about the use of 'and' and commas as separators in a list. I've found mixed opinions from different sources.

Specifically, does 'and' replace the comma, or is the comma still required? Of these two, which is correct?

I bought milk, bread, steak, and ice cream.

or

I bought milk, bread, steak and ice cream.

[Dakarʒ]

I do believe its optional.

[Doofy]

Didn't we have this conversation recently?

English English says no comma.

[nonhuman]

Yeah, we went over this about two weeks ago I think. Pretty much either way works in both British English and American English, it just depends on who taught you and who'd judging you.

[osiris]

If you use steak and ice cream , the context assumes that the two are together, like peanut butter and jelly.
But you would buy milk, peanut butter, and jelly.
And eat peanut butter and jelly. I think.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yeah, we went over this about two weeks ago I think. Pretty much either way works in both British English and American English, it just depends on who taught you and who'd judging you.

Bear in mind that a lot of what you see in the UK these days isn't English English, it's American English. Rise of the Internet, cultural crossover and teachers who themselves don't know the correct English way, etc., etc..

[zro]

Originally Posted by osiris 

If you use steak and ice cream , the context assumes that the two are together, like peanut butter and jelly.
But you would buy milk, peanut butter, and jelly.
And eat peanut butter and jelly. I think.

I concur.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yeah, we went over this about two weeks ago I think. Pretty much either way works in both British English and American English, it just depends on who taught you and who'd judging you.

I must have missed it. I'm usually in the other lounge.

[Ghoser777]

From my programming perspective, the "extra" comma makes more sense. I see it both ways all the time. The general rule I live by with commas is if you said the sentence out loud and you would either pause or take a breath, then a comma is needed.

[Faust]

I bought milk, bread, steak and ice cream.

This is the correct form. No comma before the "and".

[BasketofPuppies]

It depends on the stylebook. The University of Chicago says that you need a comma before the "and;" the Associated Press says not to use one there.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies 

It depends on the stylebook. The University of Chicago says that you need a comma before the "and;" the Associated Press says not to use one there.

That is consistent with my experience, because I usually see writing in books and papers that use the extra comma, but in newspapers they tend to leave it out, and it is always jarring to me. I prefer the extra comma, because otherwise it looks like the last two are linked in some special way that the others are not, like the "peanut butter and jelly" example.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Bear in mind that a lot of what you see in the UK these days isn't English English, it's American English. Rise of the Internet, cultural crossover and teachers who themselves don't know the correct English way, etc., etc..

Oh believe me I know. I was in London on business some time last year (well several times last year, but I'm talking about one specific time) and I actually had to explain to a (British) girl what the proper British way of saying something was because she was automatically going with the American way and everyone was confused about which was 'correct'.

This, I find, is really only an issue with those who (like myself) have more or less grown up with the internet (it's rather odd to think that I, at 24, am almost too old to be in this demographic). The older Brits that I know (most of whom live in the US) are much clearer on what is the 'proper' British way of saying things and what is the American way. But I guess they mostly grew up hearing nothing but British English except for what American they might have gotten on the tele.

All in all, this is a very interesting time to be an aspiring linguist.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies 

It depends on the stylebook. The University of Chicago says that you need a comma before the "and;" the Associated Press says not to use one there.

The Associated Press being, as it is, the bastion of the Liberal Media, I think it's clear that whatever decisions they have made only serve to further weaken America and to dilute our glorious culture into the Islamic mishmash that Europe has degenerated into.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

That is consistent with my experience, because I usually see writing in books and papers that use the extra comma, but in newspapers they tend to leave it out, and it is always jarring to me. I prefer the extra comma, because otherwise it looks like the last two are linked in some special way that the others are not, like the "peanut butter and jelly" example.

I was taught basically the same style and it was extremely difficult for me to adjust when I started working at a PR firm and they basically required that everything be written in AP style. I conceded on most points, but I just couldn't bring myself to get rid of those commas.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I conceded on most points, but I just couldn't bring myself to get rid of those commas.

Technically, there's no need for that comma before the "but" either.

(I still use one there occasionally)

[SVass]

I was taught around 1950 that it was optional (and that was by a teacher who taught me to read and pronounce Chaucer in its original English). She also said that I could start a sentence with the word And when I became as well regarded as Poe. sam

[Faust]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

All in all, this is a very interesting time to be an aspiring linguist.

It is. And horrifying at the same time. I studied linguistics and philology a few years ago and it is not easy at all. It is especially difficult for people whose mother tongue is not English. I wish you good luck with your studies. It is fun. Mostly.

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Technically, there's no need for that comma before the "but" either.

It's not necessary, but if you want to show a pause, you need one. And people often do pause before saying "but."

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Technically, there's no need for that comma before the "but" either.

(I still use one there occasionally)

See, I was taught that a comma is always necessary before a conjunction joining two clauses so that said before-but-comma is entirely necessary. (As is the comma in that sentence as it joins two clauses, there being an implied 'you' along with that 'see' making it a complete sentence and not a sentence fragment.)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Faust 

It is. And horrifying at the same time. I studied linguistics and philology a few years ago and it is not easy at all. It is especially difficult for people whose mother tongue is not English. I wish you good luck with your studies. It is fun. Mostly.

I absolutely love it, although I'm not currently studying linguistics (or anything at all, have been out of school for 3 years). My future academic plans include a PhD in Archaeology/Anthropology, most likely with a focus on linguistics. Happily, getting a PhD (or masters, for that matter) in Archaeology will require me to learn one or two more language (depending on what school I go to); I'm planning on Spanish which I have a pretty good background in (having grown up in California and having studied both French and Latin previously). So even if I abandon linguistics as a formal field of study my language geekery shall still have an outlet (Spanish will bring me up to 6 languages).

Wow, I get long winded when drunk...

[peeb]

The question of 'is it correct' is ultimately less interesting and important than the question of 'which way creates the most clarity and ease of understanding?'

[Don Pickett]

It also depends on where you're looking and/or writing. Magazines and newspapers generally don't use serial commas to save space. Books, on the other hand, use them.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

It also depends on where you're looking and/or writing. Magazines and newspapers generally don't use serial commas to save space. Books, on the other hand, use them.

This is a good point. Probably a large part of the reason that the AP excludes those commas is to save column space. The more meaning you can fit in a given area of page, the better. Also, going back to the moveable type days, you might not actually have all that many commas, so you'd want to use them as sparingly as possible.

[Faust]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I absolutely love it, although I'm not currently studying linguistics (or anything at all, have been out of school for 3 years). My future academic plans include a PhD in Archaeology/Anthropology, most likely with a focus on linguistics. Happily, getting a PhD (or masters, for that matter) in Archaeology will require me to learn one or two more language (depending on what school I go to); I'm planning on Spanish which I have a pretty good background in (having grown up in California and having studied both French and Latin previously). So even if I abandon linguistics as a formal field of study my language geekery shall still have an outlet (Spanish will bring me up to 6 languages).

Wow, I get long winded when drunk...

Oh yes. And Spanish will be extremely easy for you considering that you have studied Latin. I do not speak Spanish but - just by knowing Latin - one understands quite a bit of any Romanic based language, at least in its written form.
With your goals in mind, have you thought about learning Ancient Greek?
It is a very easy to learn language, and as straight forward as Latin.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Didn't we have this conversation recently?

English English says no comma.

At least 3 other languages concur.

V

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Faust 

Oh yes. And Spanish will be extremely easy for you considering that you have studied Latin. I do not speak Spanish but - just by knowing Latin - one understands quite a bit of any romanic based language, at least in its written form.
With your goals in mind, have you thought about learning ancient Greek?
It is a very easy to learn language, and as straight forward as Latin.

My planned area of focus is the Americas, so Greek wouldn't be all that helpful (although I am interested in it as, despite my other inclinations, I'm very interested in classical studies; I often fear that I'm too much of a generalist to do much of anything).

I'm mostly interesting in Central/South America, so Spanish would, by far, have the broadest application. Portuguese is on my list as well, not only for the obvious reason of Brazil, but because the area I live in now (Somerville, MA) has a very large Portuguese speaking population. Unfortunately I haven't really narrowed my area of interest down beyond 'the Americas' so I can't really say where I'm likely to end up between Peru, Mexico, the American Southwest, or the American Northeast, but those seem to be the most likely areas at this point.

[Sherman Homan]

I was taught that the comma should not be used. To this day I think it looks ridiculous to use a comma before "and". However, there is a famous legal case (so famous that I have forgotten the details...) where a will was presented with the sentence to the effect of: the estate will be divided equally among Child A, Child B, Child C and Child D. After some nasty lawsuits, the estate was award so that Child A and Child B each got a third. The court ruled, incredibly, that the conjunction was such that Child C and Child D were combined and received a third of the estate. In other words Child C and Child D had to split their third of the estate.
I tried to look this up on snopes.com but found nothing, could be an urban myth.

[peeb]

Grammar in legal documents is a different issue, beyond the scope of this question, but the point is the same - one should use punctuation to create maximum clarity, rather than slavishly following rules that (sometimes) create ridiculous sentances.

[OreoCookie]

Usually there is no comma, but sometimes it needs to be added as the meaning might change a little. For example it's better to add a comma in the following situation:

I had toast, ham and eggs, and orange juice for breakfast.

Obviously `ham and eggs' is an inseparable object and omitting the comma would add confusion. AFAIK adding a comma is option in American English and I often add it to avoid confusion.

[BRussell]

Here's another one for British vs. American English: Isn't it true that in British English they treat a proper noun that refers to a group of people as plural? So "Apple have introduced a new iMac" would be correct? It sounds absurd to me, but the Brits always insist on it.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Here's another one for British vs. American English: Isn't it true that in British English they treat a proper noun that refers to a group of people as plural? So "Apple have introduced a new iMac" would be correct? It sounds absurd to me, but the Brits always insist on it.

That much is definitely true. Companies and other organizations are treated as collective nouns and thus plural in British English.

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

That much is definitely true. Companies and other organizations are treated as collective nouns and thus plural in British English.

That's a common misconception. British common law treats a company as an individual, so, therefore, an organization is officialy considered singular in British English. (A lot of people treat them as plural anyway, and there are exceptions.)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies 

That's a common misconception. British common law treats a company as an individual, so, therefore, an organization is officialy considered singular in British English. (A lot of people treat them as plural anyway, and there are exceptions.)

This may be the case legally, however in my experience the British generally use the plural when referring to corporations: Apples does, &c.

[voodoo]

Using a comma before 'and' is repetitive.

1, 2, 3 and 4 means exactly the same as 1, 2, 3, 4 which means exactly the same as 1 and 2 and 3 and 4. Written language is a reflection on spoken language and in the context of lists the word 'and' equals a comma.

People don't say 'and' between every item on a list, they abbrivate it and this abbrivation is reflected by a comma in the written language.

1, 2, 3, and 4 isn't confusing but it is repetitive and unnecessary. Also in all grammar that I have learned (in four languages) it is incorrect.

V

[peeb]

In the simple example you give, that is true, but consider this:

The teams will be: Jim and Bob, Jodie, Fred, Ann and Joe.

How many teams are there? Who is on each?

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally Posted by peeb 

In the simple example you give, that is true, but consider this:

The teams will be: Jim and Bob, Jodie, Fred, Ann and Joe.

How many teams are there? Who is on each?

Five teams. Four would be "Jim and Bob, Jodie, Fred and Ann and Joe" (AP Style) or "Jim and Bob, Jodie, Fred, and Ann and Joe" (Chicago Style).

[richwig83]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Here's another one for British vs. American English: Isn't it true that in British English they treat a proper noun that refers to a group of people as plural? So "Apple have introduced a new iMac" would be correct? It sounds absurd to me, but the Brits always insist on it.

How would you say it??

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by richwig83 

How would you say it??

Has.

Apple has introduced new iMacs.
Apple is going to release new iMacs.

It's one company, not multiple companies.

[ghporter]

Style book and grammar text aside, if there's ANY doubt about the meaning without the comma, USE IT.

BRussell, British grammar considers a corporation to be a PLURAL, COLLECTIVE NOUN. It is a group of people, so Apple is a collective noun and "Apple have introduced new iMacs." is completely acceptable. On my side of the pond, Apple IS an entity, a legal fiction with the status of a human being for legal purposes, so here we would day "Apple has introduced new iMacs."

[riley46]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I'm looking for some thoughts and links about the use of 'and' and commas as separators in a list. I've found mixed opinions from different sources.

Specifically, does 'and' replace the comma, or is the comma still required? Of these two, which is correct?

I bought milk, bread, steak, and ice cream.

or

I bought milk, bread, steak and ice cream.

Based on the explanations, both are correct. They may appear to consist of the same words, but the use of commas in both sentences make them different from each other - steak, and ice cream is separate while steak and ice cream is combined. The use of comma is clearly defined at this link. I only read the first two rules because they seem to be the ones applicable to the discussion.

[richwig83]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Has.

Apple has introduced new iMacs.
Apple is going to release new iMacs.

It's one company, not multiple companies.

Yeah that is kind of weird how we do that... i'm not sure if either way is wrong tho!

[scottiB]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

See, I was taught that a comma is always necessary before a conjunction joining two clauses so that said before-but-comma is entirely necessary. (As is the comma in that sentence as it joins two clauses, there being an implied 'you' along with that 'see' making it a complete sentence and not a sentence fragment.)

That is how I was taught, too. "For", "and", "nor", "but", "or", "yet", and "so" connecting two independent clauses are preceded by a comma.

[olePigeon]

Nearly every single academic style and grammar manual will tell you to use the serial comma. It is never wrong to use the serial comma.

Only journalism (and even some government) style manuals will tell you not to use the serial comma. Not using a serial comma introduces ambiguity in a sentence. It's a stupid practice and should be avoided.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies 

Four would be "Jim and Bob, Jodie, Fred and Ann and Joe"

Is it Fred and Ann, or Ann and Joe?

[BasketofPuppies]

Ann and Joe. The extra "and" would be redundant otherwise. The extra "and" is necessary using either the Associated Press Stylebook or The Chicago Manual of Style style, and you'll see that I used it in both of them.

[Cthulhu]

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies 

Ann and Joe. The extra "and" would be redundant otherwise. The extra "and" is necessary using either the Associated Press Stylebook or The Chicago Manual of Style style, and you'll see that I used it in both of them.

How is the extra "and" redundant if Fred and Ann are on the same team instead of Ann and Joe? It would read (using Oxford):

"The teams are: Jim and Bob, Jodie, Fred and Ann, and Joe."

If you take out the serial comma, you can't tell if it's Fred and Ann on one team, or if it's Ann and Joe on one team. The fact that we're arguing about it shows how stupid it is to leave out the serial comma.

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally Posted by Cthulhu 

If you take out the serial comma, you can't tell if it's Fred and Ann on one team, or if it's Ann and Joe on one team. The fact that we're arguing about it shows how stupid it is to leave out the serial comma.

Note my placement of commas and "ands." That makes it clear that it's Ann and Joe, not Fred and Ann.

Again, the "ands" are the same regardless of whether or not you need the final comma.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies 

Note my placement of commas and "ands." That makes it clear that it's Ann and Joe, not Fred and Ann.

Again, the "ands" are the same regardless of whether or not you need the final comma.

I agree with Cthulhu, they aren't the same and the "ands" don't indicate otherwise.

"The teams are: Jim and Bob, Jodie, Fred and Ann and Joe."

Can mean either:

"The teams are: Jim and Bob, Jodie, Fred, and Ann and Joe."
or
"The teams are: Jim and Bob, Jodie, Fred and Ann, and Joe."

Having two "ands" in there doesn't make it any more clear.

[BasketofPuppies]

I agree with Cthulhu, they aren't the same and the "ands" don't indicate otherwise.

They are the same. No "and" between Fred and Ann would mean that Ann and Joe are separate teams. With it there, they are one team. No matter what, Fred is his own team. Again, regardless of what your favorite stylebook has to say about commas.

If the serial comma were absolutely necessary, we would use it for lists of two with an "and" separating the two items. We don't (unless we want to imply a pause), so stylebooks are allowed to disagree.

Not that English makes sense, regardless of style.