Another Comma Lesson

If you read this blog much, you have heard about the oxford comma (if not, look for it in the search box on the right), the comma before the conjunction in a list. I encourage you to use it. My rule is that without that comma you can sometimes be misunderstood; but with it, you will not be misunderstood.

The rule applies even if you don’t use the conjunction at the end. Maybe I should say especially if you don’t use the conjunction at the end. This list contains only two items, but you get the point.

So use the oxford comma!

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

The three readers of this site know that I’m a fan of the Oxford comma. That’s the comma just before the conjunction when you have a list. But what if the last two things in the list aren’t in the list?

This isn’t a list, it’s an appositive, which also takes a comma. An appositive is when you describe something, then name it. Here’s another example: “I like our English teacher, Mr. George.” Do you like two things you’re describing? Then it’s “my brothers, Bob and Bill.”

This sentence is also a good argument that you should use the Oxford comma—the one before “and” in a list.

The inevitable centerpieces of fall’s new-hardware season are new iPhones, Windows 11 PCs and other devices from Facebook, Amazon and Google.

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-login-6392efaa-4622-4de3-b5d4-909d9d153982.html

No comma after Windows 11 PCs! The way it’s written you would include “and other devices” with Windows. But keep reading—the sentence has two lists! So the phones and Windows aren’t from Facebook, Amazon, and Google. An Oxford comma would have prevented that bump in meaning.

But wait—there’s more! Since Facebook, Amazon, and Google are a list within a list, that first list should have a semicolon instead of a comma. So here’s how the sentence should be:

The inevitable centerpieces of fall’s new-hardware season are new iPhones, Windows 11 PCs; and other devices from Facebook, Amazon, and Google.

Good punctuation reduces ambiguity.

Maybe I just feel curmudgeonly today. You can decipher the sentence, maybe, but it takes a while to figure out what’s wrong with it. Here’s the sentence:

“Shield” should jump right out at you as incorrect: it should be “shields,” to go with “decades-old law,” right? So why did a professional writer (and editor, I presume) use the plural, “shield”? I think to go with the plural “changes” in the second line. But “the decades-old law” interferes! Especially since we see only one comma, which separates that plural verb (shield) from the plural (changes) and puts it with the closer singular (law). But putting a comma after “law” makes the sentence sound awkward. (The rule is that two commas count as zero commas.) And what if the intention was to use “shields,” which changes the meaning of the whole sentence!

A bad sentence no matter what you do to it. How would you fix this?

Here’s my solution:

Frank Pallone Jr., the chairman of the committee hosting the hearing, said he wants to explore making some changes to Section 230 to shield tech companies from lawsuits over posts, videos, and photos that people share on their platforms. The law is decades old.

Maybe the sentence means the opposite:

Frank Pallone Jr., the chairman of the committee hosting the hearing, said he wants to explore making some changes to Section 230 because it shields tech companies from lawsuits over posts, videos, and photos that people share on their platforms. The law is decades old.

Make the reference to the age of the section into a separate sentence.

Here’s a picture of the CEOs scheduled for the hearing. I don’t have a shot of Mr. Pallone.:

PS—I fixed the missing oxford comma, too. Did you notice?

When you have a compound sentence, put the comma before the conjunction. Applies to semicolons, too. I think the big guy looks angry because the little guy has it wrong. Right???