Use of comma in lists?

[Trevoke]

We're writing a brochure and the headline says :

"Providing our unsurpassed technology and service to East Setauket, Smithtown and the surrounding communities"

The question is : should there be a comma before the 'and', after the 'and' or no comma at all?

Tao Te Ching Discussions : Chapter 9 (includes links to previous chapters)
What is the nature of conflict?

 

[avanderlaan]

Moral of story: pay attention to the placement of commas when making out your will.

 

[EdwardMartinIII]

Another solution that hasn't really been addressed (but ought to in any such usage discussions) is that 90% of ambiguity issues can be solved by rewriting the sentence to make more sense.

For example: Jill joined Mark and Barbara in the kitchen, where, with the help of floating evil bunnies, they simply split the pie into thirds, each greedily taking a piece.

Think of it as finding an outside-the-box solution.

Edward

"Cut a hole in the door. Hang a flap. Criminy, why didn't I think of this earlier?!" -- inventor of the cat door

 

[harebrain]

If Jill joined Mark and Barbara, does that not make them Siamese twins?

 

[SantaMufasa]

If Jill joined Mark and Barbara, does that not make them Siamese twins?

Could it not mean, instead, that they are a biologically impossible set of Siamese Triplets? (I.e. Politically Correct/Polite: Conjoined Triplets?)

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]
“Beware of those that seek to protect you from harm. The cost will be your freedoms and your liberty.”

 

[EdwardMartinIII]

If Jill joined Mark and Barbara, does that not make them Siamese twins?"

No, it makes Jill a frickin' speed demon with the cyanoacrylate adhesive.


Edward

"Cut a hole in the door. Hang a flap. Criminy, why didn't I think of this earlier?!" -- inventor of the cat door

 

[EdwardMartinIII]

It might also make Jill a minister.

Edward

"Cut a hole in the door. Hang a flap. Criminy, why didn't I think of this earlier?!" -- inventor of the cat door

 

[KornGeek]

Maybe Mark and Barbara are table names and Jill is a DBA.

 

[SantaMufasa]

Maybe Mark and Barbara are table names and Jill is a DBA.

Yes, but I don't want to go near the discussion of whether it would involve outer joins or inner joins. <silly grin>

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]
“Beware of those that seek to protect you from harm. The cost will be your freedoms and your liberty.”

 

[EdwardMartinIII]

Yes, but I don't want to go near the discussion of whether it would involve outer joins or inner joins."

Too late.

The problem with being so gung-ho about normalization is that you miss all the fun.

(innocent whistling...)

Edward

"Cut a hole in the door. Hang a flap. Criminy, why didn't I think of this earlier?!" -- inventor of the cat door

 

[KornGeek]

This side conversation (a joke from a joke...) got me thinking. In law, there is often ambiguity, and/or a lot of convoluted language to avoid ambiguity. In computers (programming, databases, etc.) there tends to be little ambiguity.

In both law and computers, you need to be very detailed and specific, plan for unexpected behavior, and anticipate possible problems. However, in law, the resulting language makes my eyes gloss over and I can't make sense of it. Perhaps it is my personal bias, or perhaps it would be useful for lawyers to define a simpler but more specific language.

Then again, maybe the amiguity and interpretation are more desirable in law. With computers, writing a program is an exercise in logic. With law, perhaps, it is more about how you can creatively use the language to suit your current needs. After all, the beauty of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is that they are flexible enough to serve modern needs despite being a couple hundred years old.

I don't really have much of a point here; I'm just posting my meandering thoughts for your consideration.

 

[SantaMufasa]

...it would be useful for lawyers to define a simpler but more specific language.

Not allowed...To do so would eliminate 95% of the work of Judges...They would rule such a language either illegal or unconstitutional. <grin>

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]
“Beware of those that seek to protect you from harm. The cost will be your freedoms and your liberty.”

 

[CajunCenturion]

On the contrary, the problem is neither the lack of simplicity nor the lack of specificity of language. The problem, if you actually consider it a problem, is that language is living and evolving, thus changing in meaning.


--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein