Hacker News Reader

Comment by zapzupnz | Hacker News Reader

> Then it goes a bit mad: an awkward comma between creator and Gary

That's not awkward at all. The comma separates "Gary Larson (no relation!)", a subordinate clause, from the main clause: "Its creator retired in 1995 […]".

Edit: As jcfields so kindly pointed out, it's apposition. Specifically, it's the use of a restrictive appositive.

To my eyes, the real awkward comma is the one after '1995'. However, The New Yorker is known to have its own, fairly specific punctuation style.

View on HN

It’s called apposition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apposition

Thanks for pointing that out. I added it to my comment, credited to you.

I wonder if the seemingly declining popularity of the oxford comma is related to a lack of knowledge of the use of non-restrictive appositives. Because your knowledge of the latter is what makes the use of the Oxford comma important to the classic phrase "We invited the two strippers, JFK and Stalin."

I don’t see declining usage. It’s never been AP style which you see in a lot of newspapers and press releases but not elsewhere. It’s OK with AP but mostly if it would be otherwise confusing.

It has seemed to me that the anti-Oxford comma crowd has grown in recent years. Although you questioning it makes me reconsider. It is possible social media has increased by exposure to the personal writing and opinions of people who were already against it. Like you mention, it is against the AP guide that journalists are generally taught to follow. And they are much more likely to tweet and anti-Oxford comma screed than write an article on it.

I'm at least a half-time professional writer and essentially all the writers I know are pro-Oxford comma--including ones who have to follow AP style for all or part of their day job.

And, again, to clarify AP a bit. AP doesn't say you can't use an Oxford comma but that you should only use it if the sentence could otherwise be misconstrued, e.g. the "We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin" that Oxford comma fans like to cite.

The New Yorker is particularly fussy about including commas for nonrestrictive apposition, even when there is no possibility of a restrictive interpretation. For example:

"When he died, in 2004, his books and exhibitions were too numerous to count, and his magazine work had been published all over the world in the best publications." [0]

The copyeditors seem to think that writing "When he died in 2004" would imply that he had died not only in 2004 but also in another year.

[0] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/when-in-berlin...

It’s also the main cause of ambiguity in lists. This can be almost completely avoided by simply using parenthesis or dashes instead of commas to set off an appositive phrase and always using an Oxford comma.

Most grammarians seem to approve the use of parenthesis or dashes that way, so I’m not sure why commas are the most popular.

I'm guessing it's because they're seen as less distracting/invasive than the others while still getting the job done. Personally, I use parentheses and em-dashes a fair bit. But I do often find myself often going back and removing a number of them when I've overdone it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com