Grammar question

[Hucklebubba]

I could probably find this out fairly easily by searching the net, but that would take a marginal degree of effort, and it wouldn't add to my postcount any.

Okay, here's my question. Of the following, which is correct?

1. "Tom, Dick, and Harry."

2. "Tom, Dick and Harry."

I was taught the first method, but I see the second used more often, and I fear I may be unwittingly utilizing antiquated midwestern techniques.

[PoolMan]

I concur with your outdated midwesternism. Option 1 is how I was taught, too.

Of course, you're always supposed to use a comma before you begin a quotation "just like this one"! Which I never do. It's the one comma rule I'm sure I'm always breaking.

[puggyd]

I think the last comma is optional but not technically incorrect. I like option 1 better, also.

[FiveMileSmile]

My journalism practices tell me that Option 1 is correct, option 2 is wrong, though due to the continuing slide in the proper rules of grammar and writing, Option 2 is considered acceptable.

But it's still not grammatically correct.

- Rich

[Lissa]

Definitely Option 1.

If you do a lot of writing, I recommend (but still don't own and really should) the book "The Elements of Style." A nice handy resource to tricky grammar questions is always good.

[Head Mutant]

Actually, I'd say option 2. Option 1 lies in the realm of outdated grammar rules that currently make writing sound and look more stilted and less fluent. Option 2 follows the general rule of "Don't use more commas than necessary". The "and" in that sentence is pause enough between the list of words.

[I picked this up from a grammar page:

3. Use a comma between all items in a series.

We will write rhetorical analyses, definitions, causal analyses, and recommendations.

Note that many styles (including the Associated Press) omit the comma before the conjunction]

So you see that even though they've made it a rule, it's not a strict one or even universally used. You'd be using correct grammar either way.

There are definite grammar rules and then more loosely followed "house styles" of grammar, which might have two equally fine ways of writing something that you choose between depending on how you were taught to write. For example, showing possession to someone's name who ends in "s". I've read just as many writers who urge that the CORRECT way is to write James's (Stephen King says this is the right way), and just as many who would go with James'. Which is right? They're both acceptable, I think the second one looks much better, but that's just my preference.

Grammar, particularly English grammar, evolves over time. It just does. It's all well and good to strive for proper grammar in your writing, but when it comes to many of the areas where the current use of English in writing is overwriting older writing styles (such as split infinitives and ending sentences with prepositions -- both of which have been accepted and upheld by many modern grammar guides), there's a point where you're just digging your heels into the ground and refusing to update on sheer principle. After all, the point of grammar is to make your writing as clear and concise as possible, not force yourself into unnatural and stilted writing patterns just to adhere to an outdated rule.

[dajaymann]

i,however,prefer,this,form,above,all,others,the,best,way,to,write,ever,is,just,like,this,

[jenfrazer]

The rule is known as the "serial comma." Whether you use or not it is entirely up to you. The AP omits it because it is unnecessary for comprehension, and the less sent over the wire, the better.

But even the AP rules have an exception. The serial comma is required when an element in the series contains a conjunction.
"Today's sandwiches are tuna, ham and cheese, and tomato."

If an element is a another series, you might want to toss in semi-colons to sort out the lot.
"I'm inviting Bob and Susan, Jim and Sarah, and Tom, Dick and Harry."
"I'm inviting Bob and Susan; Jim and Sarah; and Tom, Dick and Harry."

As with any grammar or style, the point is to be consistent and clear, while considering your audience. You'll only get the serial comma wrong if your audience expects something else.

It all puts me in mind of an early Red Dwarf quote:
Rimmer: After intensive investigation (comma) of the markings on the alien pod (comma) it has become clear (comma) to me (comma) that we are dealing (comma) with a species of awesome intellect (colon).
Holly: Good. Perhaps they might be able to give you a hand with your punctuation.

[DocD83]

I was taught option 1, but often the omission of "necessary" commas make the sentence clearer. I usually omit one comma when three are used outside a list, so that the reader's rhythm and emphasis falls the way I want it.

Of course, you're always supposed to use a comma before you begin a quotation "just like this one"! Which I never do. It's the one comma rule I'm sure I'm always breaking.

Not always. In fact, your example doesn't need one. You need one when you use the "(pro)noun verb, 'quote'" method: "You said, 'This way.'" With a quote that short you might not need it. The point is to give the reader a breath before launching into what is probably a whole sentence within your sentence. So short quotes or quotes that fit nicely into the rhythm of your sentence don't need it.

[PoolMan]

Yeah, I didn't use quite the right example. Here's more what I was shooting for:

Upon seeing Kyle's underage date, Justin said, "Well, that's what I call a sticky situation!".

[pfrsue]

I think I left my Strunk and White "Elements of Style" in the car, but "Writing - A College Handbook" says that you should use the comma unless the last two items are clearly distinguished. Such as: " He shined his shoes, pressed his pants and carefully brushed his coat". (Uhm. This is a very old book.)

Having said that, I was taught option two in school and assuming I had a list anywhere in my novel-lite (can't remember!), that's what I used.

[Head Mutant]

Does anyone else get all hot and bothered when people start talking grammar?

Anyone?

Any...?

Um.

[DocD83]

Wait a minute--weren't you an english major?

[Hucklebubba]

PoolMan said:

Upon seeing Kyle's underage date, Justin said, "Well, that's what I call a sticky situation!".

A-ha!! (Take On Me) This brings up another question.

Note that Poolman's quotation of Justin ends with an exclamation point, followed by a period after the last set of quotation marks. Is the period necessary? I'm not assuming wrongness, I'm just wondering.

Gah. There are some aspects of grammar that I'm completely stupid about, and I often wonder if said aspects are things I was taught and forgot, or if I'm simply an uneducated boob.

For instance, I still have to flip a coin when it comes to choosing between a colon or semicolon. Likewise, when providing contextual information, I'm never quite sure whether I should use a dashed separation, or parenthesis. Another example!

1. Senator Jim Skeezix (Who enjoys dressing up like a schoolgirl in his spare time.) was recently indicted on six counts of wire fraud.

2. Senator Jim Skeezix--who enjoys dressing up like a schoolgirl in his spare time--was recently indicted on six counts of wire fraud.

I'm thinking #2 is right, but that's mostly just a guess.

[DocD83]

Ooh! Dashes! I love dashes! Here's how they work (paraphrased from "A Writer's Reference" by Diana Hacker):

- To set off parenthetical information that deserves emphasis. So both your examples are right; it's up to you whether the costume info is as important as the rest of the sentence.

- To set off appositives that contain a comma.

- To prepare for a list, restatement, an amplification, or a dramatic shift in tone or thought.

I'm not too sure about colons vs semicolons. I just throw in a couple semicolons now and again to look smart to the 95% of the population who don't know any more than I do on the subject. Just like in this post.