In summary:
Type 1 people: Yeah, nah. SCs are not as obviously right as many of you seem to think.
Type 2 people: Right on!
Type 3 people: You are probably the happiest and sanest of the three.

#SerialCommas #OxfordCommas #Typology 4/4

...
d. An SC can be confused with a different type of comma, such as one introducing a clause with a new subject. That happened with a novel I was reading; I had to reread the sentence to make sense of it. (Alas, I didn’t write it down for future reference).
e. Unless unavoidable, SCs are not generally used in formal New Zealand writing – it seems to be similar in Australia and the UK.

#SerialCommas #OxfordCommas #Typology 3/4

I am very much a Type #2 person because:
a. SCs are ugly and mostly unnecessary. No one writes “cabbages, and carrots” so why should I write “beans, cabbages, and carrots”?
b. SCs don’t avoid ambiguity as universally as Type #1 people think – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma#Ambiguity
c. If there’s ambiguity, rewording is usually better than putting so much reliance on a tiny punctuation mark to fix things.

Continued...

#SerialCommas #OxfordCommas #Typology 2/4

At our university, we have writing styles that require* or discourage** using serial commas (SCs; aka Oxford commas).

I often joke with students that there are three kinds of people in the world:
#1 Those who love SCs.
#2 Those who dislike SCs.
#3 And the vast majority of people: those who don’t know what an SC is and don’t care.

* e.g., APA https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/punctuation/serial-comma
** e.g., NZLSG https://www.austlii.community/foswiki/NZLawSG/GeneralRulesMainText#Punctuation

#SerialCommas #OxfordCommas #Typology 1/4