Well, there is one company in Maine that now cares about the Oxford comma! I had a related topic in mind for today’s post anyway, so when I saw this article (and several people sent it to me) I knew I had to write about it.
The Oxford, otherwise known as the “series” comma, is one of the more controversial grammar topics. A 2014 survey (who would think anyone would survey people’s opinions about the Oxford comma!) showed that 57 percent of Americans surveyed were in favor of the comma, and 43 percent were opposed.
So, if you haven’t read the story, a Maine company was faced with a class-action lawsuit about overtime pay for their truck drivers due to the interpretation of a written law. These drivers distribute perishable food items. Here is the sentence (it isn’t even a complete sentence ) in question — to which overtime pay does NOT apply:
“The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of…”
The only thing the drivers do as part of their regular job is distribute. If the comma were there, the law reads, “The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment, or distribution…” Aha! Here we see that with the comma, distribution is a separate thing, and there is no overtime. But when we leave the comma out (as it is in the official law), the last item in the series is packing for shipment or distribution. Clarified, this item would be packing for shipment or packing for distribution. There is no overtime for packing, but they don’t pack; they distribute. So all is good and they receive overtime.
Another thing to notice in the series is that all the items end in -ing (gerunds, we call them). If distribution were the last item in the series, it would not be parallel with all the other items: canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing (for shipment), distribution. While sometimes mistakenly written in a nonparallel way, the items in the series should all be parallel; therefore, there is yet another grounds to interpret the last item as packing for shipment or distribution, since this preserves the parallelism in the writing.
The appeals court reversed a lower court decision. The appeals court said that the lack of a comma raised sufficient uncertainty to take the side of the drivers.
David G. Webbert, a lawyer who represented the drivers, said, “That comma would have sunk our ship.” That simple little Oxford comma would have made distribution a separate item in the series and disqualified them from overtime pay for distribution, which is their job.
The Maine Legislative Drafting Manual specifically instructs lawmakers to NOT use the Oxford comma. So it is really unclear as to whether “packing for shipment or distribution of” is one item or two. We can assume either that the words are two items with no Oxford comma (no overtime pay), or one item where no comma would be used anyway (overtime pay). Either way, the series follows the Manual’s rule of no Oxford comma, and the Oakhurst Dairy could be out $10 million!
I personally am pro Oxford comma, and I don’t understand what the big deal about using it is. I know there are people who overuse commas, sprinkling them over their writing like salt . . . however, the Oxford comma, in my opinion, is not an overuse. It often clarifies: I would like to thank my parents, Steve Martin and Jimmy Fallon. (??) See?
Grammar Diva News
Please check out the guest blog post I wrote for The Language Lab in Toronto.
Yes, it is free! The Kindle edition of my first book!
Actually it’s called the serial comma and this kind of nit-picking would only apply in the USA. In the UK, since the “Oxford comma” is a quirk of Oxford University Press and is not consider to be good British English, a court would have rejected this claim. I am an americanizer/angliciser of texts and have seen many U.S. texts that do not use the Oxford comma, even though it is now considered good U.S. English. No doubt the Chicago Manual of Style will discard it in a forthcoming edition only to reinstate it in the subsequent edition, that’s how they sell the CMOS.
Well, in the case of the Maine trucking company, it isn’t even a question of an Oxford comma because they were correct not putting a comma there. I really like the Oxford comma and think it usually clarifies. I know it goes in and out of style. However, I like the Oxford comma much beter than I like the Chicago Manual, in which I can never find what I am looking for
Arlene – good article, thanks (and much clearer than another I saw on the same topic)!
Just one question. In the sentence towards the end:
“The Maine Legislative Drafting Manual specifically instructs lawmakers to NOT use…” shouldn’t it be “NOT to use”?
Ooops! Did I split my infinitive? Yes, you are right; it would be better to not split it, but it’s acceptable now. Thanks!
“it would be better to not split it, but it’s acceptable now. ” As in, “it would be better NOT to split it”?!
I guess you wanted to make a point that “it’s acceptable,” right? Great article. Thanks.
Actually I did it by accident, although splitting infinitives is one of the few things I a a little liberal on. Apparently also ending a sentence with a preposition — and fragments!
Thank you. The article is supportive and poses the significance of proper punctuation, but similar to the comma issue, a student of English may argue that their answer to an MCQ was correct if any of these options are offered:
A) It would be better TO NOT split it.
B) It would be better NOT TO split it.
Would you sport such argument on the grounds that either form “is acceptable” and correct English gramma ?
Good question. Where does the adverb go? I assume either is correct because there is usually leeway in placement of an adverb unless the meaning is unclear. I think the meaning is clear in either case. I like A because not split goes together, but that is just how I read it.
This really brings the points home. Thanks!
You are very welcome!
So glad people sent you the article. I thought of you as well, Arlene, so you must be embedded in my brain as the unparalleled “Grammar Diva”
Thank you so much. I love being unparalleled!
Hurray that a comma can (or cannot) do so much for clarity. I’ve always been a fan of the Oxford comma and have only recently and reluctantly started leaving it out. I’m using it again. I’m glad for the drivers though. . . .
I was going to write an article similar to this even before the article — after talking with you in Napa last week. It got me thinking about commas and such!
Just in case you haven’t seen this… Danielle Allen’s Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality is a tempest spun around a single comma. Seemed silly to me but she has built a career and book around the questions: was a comma left out or added; does it matter??
I haven’t seen it, but will definitely need to check it out. Apparently, much of the times it matters — especially when it helps or hurts a side in a legal case! Thanks for the info. I will look into it.
When I read that article in the Press Democrat about the missing Oxford comma, I immediately thought of you.
I am glad people think of me when they read about grammar and punctuation! It makes me feel loved — or at least appreciated!
So glad you’re spotlighting the Oxford comma, Arlene!
Another editor friend and I had a shouting match over the phone decades ago about the Oxford comma.
She still insists she was right, I still insist I was right! LOL
Editors are a strange breed. Linda Jay
Ha! I couldn’t NOT spotlight the Oxford comma after seeing the big article in the Press Democrat — and receiving links to the article from several people. I love the Oxford comma. I realize it is neither right not wrong most of the time. However, it does clarify more than it confuses, so why not use it as the default???
I am just curious. What do you think about Donald Trump’s grammar? Do you think it’s presidential?
I have written a few blog posts on the topic, trying to remain “nonpartisan.” However, in as nonpartisan a way as I can put it: I don’t think there is anything about him that is presidential.
I love your articles, Arlene! After reading the above comment, I’d just like to say that I hope you will choose to remain non-partisan so that everyone can continue to enjoy your articles.
Thank you so much. I will try to remain nonpartisan, as difficult as that may sometimes be!
Thanks!