What are your thoughts on the Oxford comma?

whatever you say timothy dexter

Yes, it is very important. Unless two things are related and thus do not benefit from being separated by a comma, the comma is always an improvement.

>I eat tortillas, oranges and apples
Sure, fruits are related or something but do not belong with tortillas, unless the plan is to make a poor man's crepe.
>I cook Asian, European and African food
No. Don't do this. Do you mean some culturally-enriched hybridization, or do you mean to separate the two? If so, why the hell aren't you using a comma?

as someone who was taught before they started teaching the oxford comma, i can say that i do feel a little sense of pride that I'm one of those few people out there that still doesn't use it.
i still understand that it's necessary to clarify certain things in a sentence, but i havent really needed to use it yet.

we should start labeling authors based on whether or not they use the oxford comma.

How old are you? I wasn't taught it, but I sure as hell adopted it.

I fucking love it. I jack off with the two commas sandwiching my dick.

What actually happened to Rei in the end? Did he died?

I use it. Beyond that, I don't care.

I'm lying. I'd totally fight someone over the oxford comma

youtube.com/watch?v=P_i1xk07o4g

But the separation is implied by the "and."
Can you give an example of a sentence that clearly changes meaning when you drop the comma?

Remember all examples posted by oxford comma defenders for supposed `ambiguity' can be reworded quickly and easily to avoid confusion.
95% of the time said `ambiguity' is only present if you ignore the context and nuance of the words around it.

I swear by it. It makes my brain itch whenever someone doesn't use it.

Not necessarily. Imagine the sentence
>The book is dedicated to my parents, John and Mary
Without the oxford comma, this sentence is compatible with both structures 1 and 2. The first structure means that the book is dedicated to 3 people, while the second structure means that the book is dedicated to 2 people. With the oxford comma,
>my parents, John, and Mary
implicates 3 people, while
>my parents, John and Mary
implicates only 2.

Holyshit, literally who gives a fuck

>But the separation is implied by the "and."
That is what this is supposed to be addressing

he reached a higher plane

I always get a higher score for my essays when I don't use it.

It's pointless, useless and rubbish

[citation needed]

If Rupi Kaur doesn't need the Oxford comma, neither do I.

>commas
>being too out of breath to use conjunctions

No it doesn't, it could very well be a weird way to phrase that one cooks culturally-enriched food. There exist better examples but I couldn't think of one.

>my parents, John, and mary
>implicates three people
It implicates fucking four people you fucking pleb. Or did your mum just eat a cunt sammich and shit you out like some filthy regenerative alien blob?

Minor error. The point stands regardless.

I know, I love Oxford commas. Which is why I will not stand for even minor errors in their name.

This post could have been so much more awesome in haiku format.

>The book is dedicated to John and Mary, my parents
>the book is dedicated to John, Mary and my parents
I don't see a problem desu

>Oxford Comma

Serious question. Why isn't it required in English grammar? Most other languages have obligatory commas for roughly the same usage.

So you'll avoid entire sentence structures just for the sake of not using the Oxford/Harvard/serial comma?

You'll change around the orders of three-membered lists just to avoid using a simple comma?

How do you even pick up that concentration of autism as an editor?

Oh no, wait, you don't. You make mistakes.

fair enough

I don't think this sentence is actually run-on.

>Pathetic, plebeian pseud, everyone knows that non-punctuated run-on sentences in big letters are the best way to get your point across to the braindead fucktards who are unfortunate enough to have to glance at your mediocre scrawlings.

Nope, it's not run-on.

Because English doesn't have any real regulations. Technically, everything in English is merely optional, and all decisions in grammar are pragmatic before they are obligatory.

Seems like you're overcomplicating things. If something is ambiguous I rewrite it to be unambiguous. I don't usually use Oxford commas, so I prefer to maintain consistency on that front, which, yes, means taking all of five seconds to reorder the list.
You may be the one with autism, my friend.

You can almost always rearrange sentence to avoid a certain phenomenon you happen to dislike for whatever reason, but just because you CAN avoid it doesn't mean you should.

Also, these lists aren't ambiguous in speech, largely because there is a pause where there would be an Oxford comma. Why not just use the comma to make the prosodic structure unambiguous?

Idk, it's really not that big a change. And speech is inconsistent in terms of pauses - you shouldn't place commas based on where you want a pause. I like my syntax for two-item-lists to match my syntax for three-item-lists is all.

Look at the title.