Simple Punctuation Question

[moo]

When using "and" or "or" at the end of a series (items, etc.), is it proper to use a comma immediately preceeding, or does it matter?

 

For example...

 

With preceeding comma:

You may use hammers, rocks, clubs, or sticks.

I found hammers, rocks, clubs, and sticks.

 

Without preceeding comma:

You may use hammers, rocks, clubs or sticks.

I found hammers, rocks, clubs and sticks.

 

I see it written both ways. :cup:

 

Thanks, moo

[ronthepon]

I don't think that a comma before a 'and' or a 'or' is meaningful...

[Tormod]

American English dictates a comma after each list item, before the "and" or "or". I am not so sure about British English.

[Turtle]

When using "and" or "or" at the end of a series (items, etc.), is it proper to use a comma immediately preceeding, or does it matter?

 

For example...

 

With preceeding comma:

You may use hammers, rocks, clubs, or sticks.

I found hammers, rocks, clubs, and sticks.

 

Without preceeding comma:

You may use hammers, rocks, clubs or sticks.

I found hammers, rocks, clubs and sticks.

 

I see it written both ways. 0.o

 

Thanks, moo

I always have to look up the comma rules myself; however, the semicolon is in my opinion underused. :confused:

 

 

 

You may have learned that the comma before the "and" is unnecessary, which is fine if you're in control of things. However, there are situations in which, if you don't use this comma (especially when the list is complex or lengthy), these last two items in the list will try to glom together (like macaroni and cheese).

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm

[moo]

Thanks guys. :confused:

 

Turtle, that site is a gold mine!!! 0.o

 

moo

[pgrmdave]

From what I remember, either way is correct, but using the comma can reduce the possibility of a misunderstanding (as in Turtle's example)

[ughaibu]

I never use a comma, before "and" or "or", in a list, I only do so if there's a change of subject.

Here's a nice site about usage of punctuation: http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/punct.html

[Qfwfq]

It's a nice site and I agree with just about everything it says, but I strongly disagree with "Quotations Marks with Other Punctuation". I'm not quite convinced it is, as they claim, the "North American usage". I think it's just a recent fad and it seems obvious to me that punctuation goes inside or outside the quotes, according to whether it is part of what is quoted or of the sentence in which the quote appears, which is a simple matter to determine. Putting it inside the quote when it belongs outside is something I always find annoyingly moronic.

 

The "macaroni and cheese" problem can often be avoided by adopting the right order of the things listed, if it's a problem at all.

[Michaelangelica]

When using "and" or "or" at the end of a series (items, etc.), is it proper to use a comma immediately preceeding, or does it matter?

Without preceeding comma:

You may use hammers, rocks, clubs or sticks.

I found hammers, rocks, clubs and sticks.

 

I see it written both ways. :surprise:

 

Thanks, moo

From an OZZIE perspective (we have our own language too) the above gets my vote

In the end, all punctuation is there to help meaning. Sometimes, in some lists, you might want to use the comma after "and" to prevent ambiguity.

 

On the question of commas in or out of the " " I tend to agree too that they should be out.

I think this is changing. When we wrote with pens it was easy to put the comma inside the quotation marks. Now with computers this is difficult so it often goes outside. Does it really matter if the sense is getting across?

 

I don't use text messaging but my wife, an English teacher, takes forever to capitalise and puncuate text messages.(Sometimes some punctuation is not even enabled)

I think she is cognitivly incapable of using the current Text Message Lingo.

It is interesting that it is being taught in Victorian and NZ schools

[pgrmdave]

I'm with you Q, I refuse to put punctuation inside of a quote when it is not being quoted. I have argued with teachers over this, and refused to change it when asked. I'm a stubborn little student :surprise:

[Qfwfq]

On the question of commas in or out of the " " I tend to agree too that they should be out.

Always?

 

I don't agree to it being a matter of which is easier. Why is one easier than the other? I think some have the preference for visual reasons alone, which arise only with lower punctuation and because quotation marks are at the apex. In principle punctuation is meant to be just after the character but this gets stumped when lower punctuation logically follows something at the apex. When writing by pen it's much less of a concern, even in this case; there is simply less difference. Before computers, there had been typewriters for many decades, only less people were using them than are using PCs today.

 

Does it really matter if the sense is getting across?

It's the sense that I was talking about. When I'm judging a writer's points, seeing that they can't distinguish where the puntuation belongs doesn't help in giving me a good impression of their credibility. :surprise:

[Turtle]

It's a nice site and I agree with just about everything it says, but I strongly disagree with "Quotations Marks with Other Punctuation". I'm not quite convinced it is, as they claim, the "North American usage". I think it's just a recent fad and it seems obvious to me that punctuation goes inside or outside the quotes, according to whether it is part of what is quoted or of the sentence in which the quote appears, which is a simple matter to determine. Putting it inside the quote when it belongs outside is something I always find annoyingly moronic.

It is a tough call, and one I consistently follow inconsistently. Just as a dictionary gets revised yearly to accomodate new words and usage, punctuation useage changes. As Dave points out that he was taught to include the terminating punctuation inside the quote marks, and even though he rejects it, it seems a harsh judegment to moronicise an individual for following their instruction.

Sometimes a moron,

Turtle

PS I'm not sure how the AP Stylebook covers this usage, however many journalists are required by their employers to follow the precepts therin.

http://www.apstylebook.com/

[Pyrotex]

...The "macaroni and cheese" problem can often be avoided by adopting the right order of the things listed, if it's a problem at all.

Yes, but you probably won't get to specify that order unless you are allowed to edit a draft. Thinking ahead that deeply whilst writing terse verbiage is not easy. And what if you have TWO "singular pairs"? Such as, "my favorite foods are chili, pork chops, chopped liver, ham and eggs, and macaroni and cheese".

 

Speaking of which, years ago, I adopted computer language rules for punctuation. In all computer languages, a string between quotes must be taken exactly as written. You NEVER put punctuation inside a quoted string. So, I say "wow", and then I say "yahoo".

 

I do not say "wow,". How would you say that anyhow?

Neither do I say "yahoo.", for I do not know how to say a period at the end of a sentence.

Worse yet, I do not say "yahoo.," which is where this eventually leads if you take the logic far enough.

 

NO! I say a period is the last character in a sentence, "period". And I never punctuate in "strings", because strings are sacred.

 

Of course, after writing 80 page technical documents for orbital vehicle subsystems, I have to write a 40 line VBasic program in M$ Word to scan through my document and re-punctuate. What a *****, but it's the principle of the thing, you know? :beer:

[pgrmdave]

It's the "yahoo.," problem that really gets to me. If I quote somebody's question, and I am writing a statement, then do I have double punctuation at the end of a sentance? To illustrate my point, look back at the previous sentance, where I said, "If I quote somebody's question, and I am writing a statment, then do I have double punctuation at the end of a sentance?." Does that really make more sense? Shouldn't language structure be designed in such a way as to make the meaning MORE clear, and understandable?

[Turtle]

It's the "yahoo.," problem that really gets to me. If I quote somebody's question, and I am writing a statement, then do I have double punctuation at the end of a sentance? To illustrate my point, look back at the previous sentance, where I said, "If I quote somebody's question, and I am writing a statment, then do I have double punctuation at the end of a sentance?." Does that really make more sense? Shouldn't language structure be designed in such a way as to make the meaning MORE clear, and understandable?

In your example sentence where I added red for emphasis, the period is incorrect and only the question mark belongs inside the quotation mark. At any rate I can find no such examples in the style books.

That is not to say double punctuation is never called for as we have recently learnt with the interrobang. Turtle reached for his pocket saying, "Is that a gun‽" :shrug:

[Qfwfq]

I believe Pyro that we're talking about cases in which we can revise, otherwise nobody could fairly expect us to be perfect. My favorite foods are ham and eggs, macaroni and cheese, pork chops, chili and chopped liver. In any case, while from a terse logical standpoint it is "and" all of these things the subtle difference is clear to anyone that knows the menu.

 

I say "rabbit", but I also say "Yahoo!". A period is the last character in a sentence, even when quoting someone that said "The beer is in the fridge.". Both of these sentences end with a "period". Don't you do the same when writing that Mary exclamed "Holy smoke!"? Commas at the end of a quote only make sense inside it when interrupting what is being quoted, which is to be continued quite soon:

 

"Eventually," Tom conceded, "it might work out much the same after

all." and he handed her the box.

 

it seems a harsh judegment to moronicise an individual for following their instruction.

But one can always moronicize the instructors, and praise Dave for refusing to submit! :cup:

 

Personally, I think that since teachers have been excising less about details that "aren't too important in themselves", yet are a matter of making sense out of things, younger generations have been turning out more and more moronic. One example is the relaxation of arithmetic practice, since the widespread availability of calculators. Many people objected that it wouldn't be good to spare the mental exercise, which is true, but the worst problem with it is that fewer and fewer young people actually understand numbers. I've often had to point out mistakes to young cashiers that had mis-keyed on the cash register and were totally unaware of it despite the blithering obviously wrong result.

[Pyrotex]

...My favorite foods are ...chili and chopped liver. ...

You eat chili and chopped liver? Yuch! :warped: :shrug: :eswirl:

That sounds disgusting!