Thursday, September 1, 2022
Commas
For Sterling's benefit and no one else, I have a new argument against the use of the Oxford comma. In laying out justified text, with a mind to wrapping it prettily around nice tables, extra commas fuck up the kerning of letters and produce ugliness. Less commas look better and ask for less insinuative attention.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
fewer commas?
ReplyDeletegawd.
ReplyDelete"less" is an old English word with proto-Germanic roots.
"fewer" is a derivative of Latin.
Before getting into an argument about ONE HAPPENSTANCE of Germanic vs. Latin words, let's start by admitting English generally provides more than one word for each thing in existence. It's why the language is so good to writers.
Just playin'. I am NOT gonna argue writing with YOU. I only taught it. You actually DO it. And I taught "fewer" with plural nouns and "less" with uncountable nouns.
ReplyDeleteStandard university boilerplate, Escritoire. No fault on your part. My usual answer is to quote this short speech by Stephen Fry.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/J7E-aoXLZGY
We've got to teach young people rules of some kind, or else whatever they produce would be a disastrous mess (as it typically is, anyway). Unfortunately, rules like "fewer" with plural nouns and so on tend to be completely ad hoc things that were invented and defended by self-righteous government institutionalists of the 19th century ... who weren't "right" about grammar, they were merely in positions of petty power. Take the Oxford comma, for example, which was installed by Oxford dons anxious to control the thoughts and minds of an effete, privileged class, with the intention of telling them apart from the "riff-raff" of the streets. Use the comma and demonstrate your peerage. That kind of thing. It's "rightness" is immaterial in relationship to it's usefulness to create superiority out of nothing.
One thing's for sure; we don't want to leave control of language in the hands of a bunch of dead pedagogic ivory towered white men with a status/class agenda.
I have been experimenting with the removal of the Oxford comma in my own writings of late, but it’s a hard habit to break. Upon rereading I always get that vague feeling of anxiety/consternation similar to leaving on a road trip and dreading you’ve forgotten something of immense importance.
ReplyDeleteAlexis, my apologies for taking so long to respond to your direct post! I went to sea the day before you posted and am only just now back.
ReplyDeleteYour argument has reinforced my belief that the most legitimate argument against the Oxford comma is from publishers wanting to save ink. Maybe layout labor is a factor too; I can appreciate that.
Clarity isn't a legitimate argument for either side as we've agreed, I think.
We might have settled the matter here were it not for your reply to Escrotoire, invoking Fry. I'm in perfect agreement with him on his points. All of them. My defense of the Oxford comma has nothing to do with pedantry or elitism, but rather with manners. It is gentler on the reader to use the serial comma than not. If I were to take issue with anything Fry says in this snippet it is his tendency to equate good manners with elitism. When executed properly, good manners are the opposite of elitism.
I agree on your point about good manners. It's respect for the person you are communicating with. Also, in my experience your enemies hate your good manners and politeness as it forces them to be good mannered and polite back to you otherwise they appear rude in front of everyone else.
DeleteHa.
ReplyDeleteI chanced to see a movie last night, 2008's Bottle Shock. Alan Rickman plays a Brit investigating California wines in 1976, where he tours around speaking with Americans. At one point in the film, Rickman's friend Maurice remarks, "Where I'm from, they call it a left-handed compliment. They don't have a name for it in England: it's too ingrained in their culture."
I used to love Stephen Fry. These last ten years, as he's moved into his 60s, he seems to have adopted too closely the cachet that's been granted to him as "defender of the cultural flag." It's gotten rather embarrassing, watching him waffle on in purplish language about how darling and sweet some bit of music or writing happens to be, when in reality he's talking pure rot out his ass. Gone are the days when he did his homework. Nowadays, he's stitched together out of fluffy teddy bears and schmaltz.
Forgive me if I gave the impression of granting Stephen Fry a blank cheque. If I took a choice epithet with which to disagree about Fry's argument it's the GALLING bullshit of Picasso and Eliot not being ugly. Stravinski I'm barely willing to tolerate, but Eliot? Fuck a hundred thousand English professors bent on making us "appreciate" this gawdawful crap. Calling Eliot beautiful does not make him so.
We thought them ugly when they introduced their garbage into the world, AND THEY'RE STILL UGLY. No matter what the towers say.
I haven't heard of Bottle Shock, but now seeing as IMDB gives it 6.8 and Roger Ebert 3.5, I believe that I need to watch it. Alan Rickman, one of those people who left the world too soon.
DeleteOn Fry, I think you are correct. His reputation from his earlier work, particularly with Hugh Laurie, means that he can do very little of very little quality for a lot of money and then spend the rest of his time in peace & quiet doing what he wants
Very well, my friend. I think we can agree on the beauty and joy of English, denominalization and all, and that there is room for two standards for serial commas so long as writers remain courteous to their readers and not lix their miquors.
ReplyDeleteWe can easily find a crowd of people for whom using the comma is evidence of bad manners. The subject is grammar, not deportment; what's good manners for you is bad manners for someone else. The great secret is not having bad manners or good manners, but having the same manner for all human souls.
ReplyDelete