Oxford Comma

[Bedrockgames]

Can't shoot guns. My brain immediately went to this (NSFW audio):

Spoiler: George Carlin uncensored

George Carlin talks about pandas.

lol . Its too bad we can't get George to weigh in on this particular issue (though I suspect he would be pro-Oxford comma)

Well, if the Panda is moving very suddenly and not firing a weapon, you should probably write "The panda eats, shoots and leaves". Still no need for an oxford comma

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, you can fixate on whatever you want to, of course, but you're being rather distracted from the actual debate by focusing on the decorations.

I don't think I am focusing on the decoration. I am taking the example, inserting a noun that makes more sense for the argument they are making (which seemed to be what you were suggesting), and pointing out it still is understandable without the oxford comma. And I will concede there are cases where the oxford comma can clarify ambiguity. I don't see that as an argument for always using it. I think the better argument is people should consider using it when there is ambiguity in its absence (particularly if the context of the sentence doesn't eradicate that ambiguity-------unless of course ambiguity is the intent).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

My feeling is if people want to use the oxford comma in every instance, they are free to do so. I think there is a better argument to be made to use it when it helps avoid ambiguity when context doesn't make the meaning clear (but I also have to admit, I like ambiguity in writing).

On the other hand, why not just use the Oxford comma when ... you have a list of three or more things and you are putting it before the "and" in the last item? And omit it when you simply have an appositive.

We invited the strippers, your mom, and your dad. (Oxford Comma)
We invited the strippers, your mom and your dad. (appositive, further defining the strippers)

Well, if the Panda is moving very suddenly and not firing a weapon, you should probably write "The panda eats, shoots and leaves". Still no need for an oxford comma

No.

In this case, you can do the following-

The panda eats, shoots, and leaves. (A panda bear (1) enjoys some food, (2) shoots ... maybe a gun, and (3) leaves the scene.)

The panda eats shoots and leaves. (A panda bear eats (1) shoots and (2) leaves.)

The panda eats, shoots and leaves. (This one makes close to no sense, and I have difficulty parsing it.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

The panda eats, shoots and leaves. (This one makes close to no sense.)

This one makes absolute sense. There is not ambiguity there at all. I don't see why this would be confusing to anyone: he eats, then he shoots and leaves. I think the intent is pretty obvious. You aren't going to mistake it for him eating shoots and leaves. Shoots and leaves only makes sense as a case of the panda shooting then leaving.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This one makes absolute sense. There is not ambiguity there at all. I don't see why this would be confusing to anyone: he eats, then he shoots and leaves. I think the intent is pretty obvious. You aren't going to mistake it for him eating shoots and leaves. Shoots and leaves only makes sense as a case of the panda shooting then leaving.

Okay, I'll bite.

Commas have rules, you agree with that? So what is the comma doing in the example you provided? Be specific, and feel free to use fancy words.

EDIT- I'm genuinely baffled, and worried I might be forgetting some use in my dotage.

 

[J.Quondam]

For me, the argument for always using an Oxford comma is just consistency. I personally prefer always having it there, rather than figuring out for myself whether or not it actually dissolves any ambiguity for someone else.

 

[Maxperson]

The thing that always bothered me about this example is Panda's can't shoot guns. So there is never going to be a person who reads that sentence (provided we are not talking about an anthropomorphic panda), and misreads A as B. Also that sentence without the Oxford comma is "The panda eats, shoots and leaves", so even if it is an anthropomorphic panda, there isn't much ambiguity in the sentence without the oxford comma. My feeling is if people want to use the oxford comma in every instance, they are free to do so. I think there is a better argument to be made to use it when it helps avoid ambiguity when context doesn't make the meaning clear (but I also have to admit, I like ambiguity in writing).

Maybe it was a bow and arrow.

 

[Maxperson]

The assassin is a vegan, targets only vegans, or kills only vegetables?

He can also target any non-animal product.

 

[Aeson]

Eating and shooting are two actions. Can the panda still move? I think he has to wait for next round to leave.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Okay, I'll bite.

Commas have rules, you agree with that? So what is the comma doing in the example you provided? Be specific, and feel free to use fancy words.

I am not pretending to be an expert on punctuation. So no fancy words. But my understanding is this still effectively qualifies as a list, and with lists you don't have to use the oxford comma (maybe I am missing some grammatical nuance where a list of actions like this doesn't qualify and there is some requirement that it needs a comma, but this definitely strikes me as a kind of sentence I have seen plenty of time, and would be fully understandable to me with just the one comma.

According to grammarly for example both:

"Julie loves ice cream, books, and kittens."

and

"Julie loves ice cream, books and kittens."

are correct.

and it lists:

"I cleaned the house and garage, raked the lawn, and took out the garbage."

or

"I cleaned the house and garage, raked the lawn and took out the garbage."

As both being correct.

Now if what I am suggesting doesn't fall under the rule, fair enough I can copt to that being technically wrong (though I would say it is a rather stupid rule in my opinion as I can easily decipher the meaning with the one comma there to separate eats so it isn't confused with the other two to create ambiguous meaning)