tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post3846471758099723518..comments2024-02-11T19:28:27.997+11:00Comments on Personal Reflections: When to use the Oxford comma?Jim Belshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-41523814767714795422019-03-10T10:15:40.799+11:002019-03-10T10:15:40.799+11:00KVD, it was just a "snip." I momentarily...KVD, it was just a "snip." I momentarily thought, "Should I 'snip' more?" Then I thought, "Nah! everybody knows it's just a snip and everyone can go back to the original."<br /><br />But I'm not sure how it affects what I said. How do you suppose I was discomfited by what I omitted?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />marcelloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06209648151753428540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-87207511591876545272019-03-09T19:00:25.317+11:002019-03-09T19:00:25.317+11:00And (possibly :) lastly, marcellous does the usual...And (possibly :) lastly, marcellous does the usual lawyers' trick of excising that which discomfits him:<br /><br />The original wording was:<br /><br />"The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of"<br /><br />- which is a "list".<br /><br />Compared to marcellous' version:<br /><br />"storing, packing for shipment or distribution of"<br /><br />- which reduces that into a two-fer - somewhat less than the original 8/9 items under argument?<br /><br />kvdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-57941841088798505032019-03-09T18:35:31.378+11:002019-03-09T18:35:31.378+11:00Addition: marcellous, your point regarding "s...Addition: marcellous, your point regarding "stress and rhythm" in speech is very well made.<br /><br />kvdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-38765651322865669372019-03-09T18:32:04.373+11:002019-03-09T18:32:04.373+11:00So... "The first thing we do, let's kill ...So... "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" :)<br /><br />And yes, I do recognise it has been wildly misinterpreted - but it seems somehow appropriate, even tho' my respect for the profession, and for the practitioners I have dealt with, remains fairly high.<br /><br />kvdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-39950341695795222542019-03-09T15:52:17.152+11:002019-03-09T15:52:17.152+11:00pps
"to resolve any ambiguity in the employe...pps<br /><br />"to resolve any ambiguity in the employers' favour"<br /><br />should be<br /><br />"to resolve in the employers' favour any ambiguity"<br /><br />That's an extension of the bugbear I referred to.<br />marcelloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06209648151753428540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-19639875006704702842019-03-09T14:16:10.210+11:002019-03-09T14:16:10.210+11:00PS:
the the employers'
should read
the empl...PS:<br /><br />the the employers'<br /><br />should read<br /><br />the employer's marcelloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06209648151753428540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-19662824386809045742019-03-09T14:11:41.339+11:002019-03-09T14:11:41.339+11:00"storing, packing for shipment or distributio..."storing, packing for shipment or distribution of"<br /><br />It is not so simple as a missing comma since after all whether the comma is missing depends on what rule you have for needing the comma in the first place. On a quick reading of the judgment, that is what the court decided. If there had been a comma before "distribution" it would have been a "tie-breaker," but in the absence of the comma the court couldn't decide whether the exemption from overtime was only for the "ing" words as a set for the "tion" activities, or whether the "or" at the end meant that "distribution" was the last item in a list of overtime-exempt activities. Because there was an ambiguity and the legslation is protective of workers the exemption from overtime could be construed in the workers' favour, which meant that the summary decision in the the employers' favour, based on the view that there was no possible argument in the workers' favour, was set aside.<br /><br />The employer settled so the case was never really decided. The workers won the battle but have meanwhile lost the war because the state legislature has amended the legislature to resolve any ambiguity in the employers' favour. <br /><br />The difficulty to me seems to me that there is a human tendency to try to squeeze too much into lists - especially, funnily enough, at the end. Once you start introducing compound terms into lists ambiguities arise as to the commutative operation of the list (to borrow from the multiplication/addition analogy already suggested). It's certainly a problem when "and" and "or" lists end up mixed together but it can also cause difficulties even where only "or" or "and" is used.<br /><br />In my own writing I'd say I get the most problems from (1) trying to pack too much in and (2) parenthetical or after- thoughts, especially when (3) necessary adjustments as a result of editorial changes are overlooked.<br /><br />My main bugbear when I read over my own prose is untangling the order of qualifiers which can sometimes end up looking as though they qualify the wrong thing. It's hard to think of an example right now. I suspect this is something which is handled in speech by stress and rhythm which don't get into the written form.<br /><br /><br />marcelloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06209648151753428540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-13594135951337858992019-03-04T15:21:30.840+11:002019-03-04T15:21:30.840+11:00Laughs! I think of an as an addition, whereas or i...Laughs! I think of an as an addition, whereas or is an alternative - to something.<br /><br />In bxc the multiplier makes for an entity. I was going to try to express it all in terms of logic such as a and by. But in a and b it means both together whereas these sentences mean or - but it's not quite that! Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-79758920742129581462019-03-04T13:25:36.362+11:002019-03-04T13:25:36.362+11:00I try to think of "and" and "or&quo...I try to think of "and" and "or" as <i>stronger</i> than simple commas in sentence construction - a bit like in math where multiply and divide cleave* more strongly than plus or minus. Example: <br /><br />a + b x c actually means a plus <i>the sum of b times c</i> NOT <i>a plus b</i> the sum of which is then multiplied by c. <br /><br />i.e. put mental brackets () around b x c NOT around a + b.<br /><br />* And then we can move onto that magical word "cleave" which can mean either "sticking close to something/body" or "split asunder".<br /><br />Should be easier, as no commas are involved :)<br /><br />kvdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com