![Tullius est [et Tullius non est Cicero]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwDG4xhsMn9o9J6nFVbJuaWEgUYVbxr7B9gbOXGZ3gwOu55lJg3q0Ev-z3MhLy29603_fkvvngkYmsTvRd4BATcVzZvVOhgkPSy-GIAuaFE0sCVBc_zcTW_d2mKKeCWhMxsZhAPyqXzymO/s1600/cicero-right-1024x603.jpg)
Unlike my ancient predecessor, this Tullius hasn't had his hands chopped off. With hands attached I offer my thoughts on philosophy, religion, politics, and whatever else I find worth mentioning. I'm conservative religiously and politically (with libertarian leanings). I value reason and freedom but also traditions and "Oldthink." I relish being on the wrong side of history when history is wrong--part of a philosopher's job is to be unpopular. (Views given here may not represent my employers')
I had never heard of this before...and yet, it strikes a chord with me. Why? Because I realize that I was trained in the use of the Oxford comma, and that until recently I utilized it religiously. I have found, however, that in recent years I have begun to strike it from my writing...and now that I read the above link, I wonder why. Is it laziness? Is it that I've been preternaturally brain-washed by the anti-Oxford-comma folks? I honestly don't know. But I will do my best to realign myself with the right-thinking champions of the Oxford Comma!
ReplyDeleteHere's what I'd say to this:
ReplyDeleteCon: "Those at the ceremony were the commodore, the fleet captain, the donor of the cup, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Jones."
This example from the 1934 style book of the New York Herald Tribune shows how a comma before "and" can result in a lack of clarity. With the comma, it reads as if Mr. Smith was the donor of the cup, which he was not.
To disambiguate between Mr. Smith being the donor of the cup and his not being said donor, if he were the donor one should write the following:
"Those at the ceremony were the commodore, the fleet captain, the donor of the cup (Mr. Smith), and Mr. Jones."
I do love me some parentheses (though I tend to abuse them).