One of the stronger arguments for the use of the serial comma is that its omission can lead to ambiguity. Consider, for example, the following sentence:

“He enjoys eating potatoes, tomatoes, peppers and onions and peas and carrots.”

In this case, it is arguable that the use of the serial comma can reduce ambiguity.

“He enjoys eating potatoes, tomatoes, peppers and onions, and peas and carrots.”

Perhaps this is considered a reduction in ambiguity, or perhaps it is just a smoother flow, breaking up the numerous instances of ‘and,’ and possibly eliminating the need for re-reading the text. (Yes, I used a comma where the serial comma is usually placed, but, if I may split hairs, the comma is used in obedience to a different rule: “Use a comma to separate similar or identical words standing next to each other, even when the sense of continuity does not seem to require it.” [Margaret Shertzer, The Elements of Grammar.]) I am not always convinced by these kinds of arguments, however, as ambiguity probably more often results from an assumption that the serial comma is supposed to be there.

Perhaps the most amusing case of this supposed ambiguity is found on a particular website about writing, which I will not name here. The sentence, which I have modified slightly, is the following:

“Bill left his money to his three children: Paul, John and Tim.”

The (rather laughable) argument was made that without the serial comma, the reader might think that the money was not split equally among the children! Ah, egalitarianism. What, pray tell, about the sentence above (even if it does include the serial comma!) gives the remotest idea that the money is necessarily split equally? Of course, it could be said that I have chosen a bit of an easy target on this one, as further bogus arguments were propounded along the same lines on this particular website.

A rule in the before-mentioned book, The Elements of Grammar, explicitly states that ambiguity is a reason for comma use:

“Use a comma to set off words, phrases, [sic] and clauses that would otherwise be unclear.”

(Yes, I am being somewhat facetious with the use of sic.) Given that a rule covering ambiguity and comma use already exists (at least according to one author, who, incidentally, uses and supports the serial comma), what is the need to add a rule when ambiguous cases have already been treated? That is to say, why generalize from a few ambiguous cases to all cases? This could possibly be understood if most cases were ambiguous, but this is hardly true.

This leads me to another argument that really annoys me: “That’s the rule of English.” This particular argument, which is to be read with a sense of “that’s the eternal rule of English,” can be embarrassed in so many ways that another post in this blog is needed to adequately deal with it. As such, I will not go into detail on this one now. Nevertheless, when I do treat this particular argument, I may name some names. We shall see.

Suffice it to say by way of conclusion, I do not believe that the argument from ambiguity is sufficient to establish the universal use of serial commas. I am still trying to keep an open mind on this matter, however, all jesting aside!

I recently served as editor for a new book on the so-called “Jesus family tomb” controversy. Of course I am biased, having been heavily involved in the project, but I would recommend the book to anyone, Christian or otherwise, who is interested in looking more closely at whether a historical archaeological find has been uncovered.

I would love to get into a little philosophical analysis of James Cameron’s foreword to The Jesus Family Tomb, but I think that should be left for another time - or not at all. The book for which I served as editor deals with certain aspects of Cameron’s opinions, but actually looking at them for their presuppositional content would make for a book by itself. Anyhow, I think that this new book, The Jesus Tomb: Is It Fact or Fiction? Scholars Chime In by Don Sausa, is a worthwhile read, and I highly recommend it.