Oxford comma dilemma

[HotCrossBunplease]

I have started working on a new project and have a colleague whose job it is to manage internal communications. She is lovely and very experienced.

I am the “figurehead” of the project in that all internal messaging says to contact me, and I am responsible for setting the overall tone and content, so I write a first draft and then pass to her for comments.

She has just come back with suggested amendments to our first big announcement and she has sprinkled Oxford commas all over the place. I can’t stand them. Two instances are new lists that she has added, based on wording that I had used in a different sentence structure. A third is a list that was in my original draft, to which she has just added the OC. As you can imagine, the third one rankles the most!

I really want to point out that my original was not wrong and that OCs are a matter of personal style. I could pull rank and make her remove them but that would make me an arsehole and set our working relationship off on the wrong foot. My sentence was this:

“Training will be provided in English, French and Portuguese.”

which has now become

“..English, French, and Portuguese”

The ones she has added are:

“Their enthusiasm, insights, and feedback have been invaluable”

and

“considering the broader impact of [project] on our clients, our practice, and the way we do business.”

I know that OCs are not wrong. I also know that not a single reader will care (apart from one friend of mine in the company who knows about my visceral objection to OCs and will find it hilarious).

Not sure what I even want from this post. A bit of solidarity maybe?

Yes, that’s part of the problem.

I still don’t know if the comma following Simon and Garfunkel in the example given upthread is an Oxford comma or not.

I thought it was.

@PleasantPedant tells me it’s not.

Could someone please clarify that please?
I’m quite confused now 🫣

ETA The original sentence was something like, ‘My cousin likes Fleetwood Mac, Simon and Garfunkel, and The Carpenters.’

Surely having a style guide that recommends NOT using the Oxford comma is also “logical and robust”?

@HotCrossBunplease , I posted:
The Oxford comma, also called the serial comma, is the final comma placed before the conjunction (usually "and" or "or") in a list of three or more items.
You said:
However, it is not only called an Oxford Comma when used in this way.
It is also called an Oxford comma when it appears in a list where there is no ambiguity, such as “Training in English, French, and Portuguese”

English, French, and Portuguese contains a final comma placed before the conjunction (usually "and" or "or") in a list of three or more items.

Your confusion was caused by there being two sentences in one paragraph.
(They happened to not be my words.)

@Terracottateapot , strictly speaking, it isn't one because S&G is one item in the list.

In the sentence “Training in English, French, and Portuguese”, French is one item in the list.
Sorry, I just don’t get it.

Neither do I @Terracottateapot

@PleasantPedant why is

“I like to listen to David Bowie, Elton John, and Simon and Garfunkel” not an OC but

“I like to listen to David Bowie, Elton John, and Donna Summer” is an OC?

That way round, it is more likely that someone will fail to use a comma when it’s needed for clarity - that’s where the robustness of consistently using the Oxford comma comes in.

If the document is intended for a UK audience, Omitting the Oxford comma is conventional British style.
Including it is equally acceptable if used consistently, Neither version is objectively more correct. The only genuinely poor outcome is mixing the two styles within the same document without a reason.

The training will be provided example would drive me insane, the other I like better! (Runs and hides!)

Yes, there is absolutely no reason to use OC in these examples. Your colleague has 'corrected' your work, which I would certainly not appreciate.
Could you ask her for the reason she has put so many OC into the revised version? I am guessing that she doesn't know that is what they are, or that there is a place for them but this isn't it.

Both examples are using the Oxford comma.

WE know this. But @PleasantPedant insists that only one of them does.

But are Tom and Jerry related? In the first example, it's unclear if Tom is Tom Smith, or if he's simply 'Tom' and Jerry has the surname Smith.

Something like this, I usually deal with by ringing them up, and basically saying "look , I'm really sorry but I have an irrational hatred of Oxford commas except where they're essential for understanding. Please can I persuade you to get rid of them or is there a requirement for them in the style guide?"

That’s the whole point of the Oxford comma. Using it consistently removes that ambiguity so in the first example it would be clear that Tom and Jerry are both Smiths and come as a set for this invitation. When you’re speaking, there is no ambiguity because of the pauses and the rising list intonation on each item apart from the final item which will have falling intonation.

I know, but I misunderstood your post in that I thought you were saying that the Oxford Comma was unnecessary in that example, so I was pointing out its necessity. I now (I think?) realise that you were simply saying you don't hear a difference in a spoken list.

I'm flying the flag for the Oxford Comma, by the way. I like the consistency.

No, I was saying I like Oxford commas, partly because I feel like they better reflect spoken prosody. I feel like the pauses between items on a list are all similar lengths so it makes sense to me to use a comma to punctuate them all in writing, including before the last item. When there is a two part item (Tom and Jerry Smith), there is no pause and the first part gets no special intonation.

You're overthinking this!

I've grown to like the Oxford Comma over the last year or two (are they getting more fashionable? not sure).
As a poster above said -and I haven't read the whole thread- the important thing is consistency with any external/internal comms.
If you really hate them with a passion, I'd ask her to remove. It'll just bug you otherwise.

It's clear. In the first example, if Tom was also Smith it would say '... and Tom and Jerry Smith'. As a couple they are one item in the list. Otherwise, 'Tom' and 'Jerry Smith' are separate items. If Tom is a Smith and coupled with Jerry, we have a list with its conjunction missing.

Because “I like to listen to David Bowie, Elton John, and Simon and Garfunkel” has a comma after John for clarity. It looks untidy without it.

“I like to listen to David Bowie, Elton John, and Donna Summer” doesn't need the comma after John unless you must use one.

“I like to listen to David Bowie, Simon and Garfunkel, and Elton John.” works for a style guide that says don't use Oxford commas and for one that says you must use them.

"John, Paul, George and Ringo" is just fine.
"John, Paul, George, and Ringo" is OK if you're American.

"John Paul George and Ringo" sounds like one man and his dog.

I've grown to like the Oxford Comma over the last year or two (are they getting more fashionable? not sure).
I think you mean more and more people are using artificial ignorance intelligence these days.

you are still insisting that it is only called an Oxford Comma if used for clarity.