I've always been an advocate of the Oxford comma, but our editors frown on our using it. They usually win, though this might be good evidence to convince them otherwise.
The Oxford comma doesn't always resolve ambiguity. Wikipedia gives this real example:
"By train, plane and sedan chair, Peter Ustinov retraces a journey made by Mark Twain a century ago. The highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector."
An Oxford comma in the second sentence would not resolve the ambiguity about whether the encounters involved 2 people or 3 people.This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,
I'd think with the Oxford comma, it would be three, but without - two. Then again, recall that I am a literalist. This seems very black or white to me, but I am sure it doesn't to others.
The highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod, and a dildo collector."
This is ambiguous because "an 800-year-old demigod" can be interpreted as an appositive describing Mandela. Or it can be interpreted as another item in the list. Mandela is not a dildo collector, but he might still be a demigod.
Who might imagine Mandela to be 800 years old? Logic tells me that there were two people; three would be impossible - unless one were long dead. It does suggest that there are many frustrated women somewhere along his journey.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Geoff,