why commas matter

[fractalspackle]

I just read that conservative-darling Mike Huckabee is starting his own political action committee. His announcement includes a statement that his group will stand for, and I quote, "tax reform, a strong national defense, real border security, life, the family, less government and individual liberty

Comments

actually...

[stranger78]

Either way is correct. It's more important to be consistent than to pick one method (comma-before-terminal-list-member vs. no-comma-before-terminal-list-member) over the other.

At least, that's what I was taught in law school. FWIW, my current firm follows an "omit the comma in front of terminal list members" policy.

yes, but...

[dharmafool]

Kevin is generally correct in that either way is acceptable, depending on the circumstances or who is overseeing the writing.

I have always been taught that the serial comma (i.e., the comma before the conjunction) is more of an American English element, not as widely used in British English. Of course, that generalization is not completely true.

I know that the American Psychological Association (APA), in an attempt to standardize the style of all psychological literature (and is the standard of style used by virtually every graduate psychology program - clinical or experimental) necessitates the use of the serial comma.

Of course, there are arguments about whether or not to use the serial comma, especially if it reduces or adds ambiguity to a list. I, personally, think it reduces ambiguity in most cases. For instance, with Ben's posting, my natural inclination is to read "less government and individual liberty" (without serial comma) as meaning "less government and less invididual liberty" at the end of that list

Re: yes, but...

[fractalspackle]

Oh, I agree that both are technically correct (though serial commas are more common), but the implication of leaving that comma out is not a good one. If you do a sentence diagram, you end up with two equally valid meanings:

(tax->reform), (a->(strong->(national->defense))), (real->(border->security)), (life), (the->family), (less-> government) (and) (individual->liberty)

OR

(tax->reform), (a->(strong->(national->defense))), (real->(border->security)), (life), (the->family), (less-> (government<-and->(individual->liberty)))

The latter diagram is presumably not at all what Mr. Huckabee would like people to think. ;)

maybe...

[dharmafool]

Or maybe Huckabee is trying to be a highly disclosive and brutally honest conservative figure... ;-)