Revisiting Oxford comma

THE Oxford comma, vetted by those in Oxford, continues to position itself elegantly before ‘and’ in order to make an intervention.  Whenever there is a set of three or more and a random pairing seems to generate ambiguity, the Oxford comma is invoked. Take for example the following examples without this comma: ‘I love my parents, Humpty Dumpty and  Lady Gaga’, or ‘I would like to thank my parents, the Pope and Mother Teresa’. Purists argue that in both instances, the absence of the Oxford comma  generates  ambiguity regarding the speaker’s parentage. Placing the Oxford comma before ‘and’ apparently quells all manner of  anxiety over ancestral antecedents and highlights a quixotic (unpredictable) love for three diverse objects, instead.

Advertisement

 The argument that without the comma these would be dodgy families is unconvincing, given that this is the age of the ‘petri dish’ (transparent dish used to culture cells), ‘surrogate mothers’, same-sex parents or single parent. Plus, our civilisation accepted the idea of immaculate conception (Mary’s) long years ago. Children in epic narratives were reportedly born when their mothers consumed ‘payash’ (Ram, Lakshman, Bharat and Shatrugan). A levirate marriage (niyog; allowing married women other sexual partners  for progeny) was described as one in which Kunti and Madri summoned the gods for their  five sons, the Pandavas. Gandhari, supposedly expelled a mass of flesh from her womb. This was subsequently divided and housed in hundred  jars that brought forth babies at the end of two years. Do we really need the Oxford comma to ‘undergird’ (substantiate) stable notions with regard to  families? 

‘We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin.’ The purist anxiety that JFK and Stalin will be identified as strippers is no longer scandal worthy.  ‘Love’ and ‘invited’ can function as verbs establishing a bond with random sets of three, in what should be non-judgemental times.

 A recent case in Maine involved truck drivers whose demand for overtime pay was granted by a court  which ruled that the absence of an Oxford comma would cost the dairy company in Portland $10 million. 

In conventional practice, academic writing, journalism and in the law manuals in the US, the Oxford comma has fallen into disuse. Words are significant repositories of meaning and they make human transactions possible. However, when punctuation marks assume such primary significance, it is perhaps time to pause and examine the ‘driving principle’ promoting adherence to ‘the letter of the law’. Laws, not merely of grammar, but especially those governing human action, are meant to ensure fair play and justice. When company owners pay as little as possible for the labour made available to them, such action highlights the expanding abyss between capital and labour. 

 Had the dairy owners extended ‘largesse’ (generous payments) to their employees, it would have been evidence of deeply internalised beliefs about equitable rewards for all. Instead, the dairy owners have been bound over by the law of the Oxford comma to compensate their drivers. When humane values must be reinforced through rules governing  punctuation marks in language, it is time to recognise that the flesh is no longer solitary in its weakness. It is accompanied by an unwilling spirit.