Another week, yet another series of silent entries from my co-contributors. But never fear, I’m not going to throw up the next portion of Bannock. Because, if someone out there was actually enjoying it, there is nothing more delightful than having to wait a full month for the short to get posted in its entirety.

There may be a reason no one reads my stuff.

At any rate, I wanted to discuss something. It is something that doesn’t enter modern parlance often but for the select elite it is a topic of heated opinions and ferocious debate. I am, of course, leading into discourse on English grammar. It’s the most wonderful of all issues that I can already hear the sounds of the two people who read my stuff closing their browsers. But bear with me, this isn’t going to be some long condemnation about the laziness of modern individuals and their complete detestations for the structure and composition of modern English.

Honestly, if I were to blame anyone for the “sorry state” it is in, that would be our government. Course, to hold this discussion properly I would first need to demonstrate that English is in a sorry state. I won’t because I’m not entirely sure it is. It’s not considered one of the most difficult languages to learn without reason and part of English’s difficulties arise from its state of being an evolving language. We have no rigid bodies that enforce all English must be conducted and spoken in one specific way. In fact, multiple branches of English are in the process of evolving. You have the older, traditional British English and its multitude of dialects (and no I’m not going to get into a discussion between the difference between a language proper and a dialect). Then you have American English with its determination to distinguish itself from its founder tongue by introducing even more contradictions and irregularities than the former all in the name of “standardization” (it’s even less standard than before).

Anyway, back to blaming the government because someone needs to take a fall for when things go bad, I and my colleagues all grew up in little, quaint Canada. We were educated through the curious period where our education overlords got it in their silly heads that language didn’t need to be taught in school. Forget every other language and country out there who fiddled and fretted their time stuffing their children’s heads full of nonsense like how to properly construct a sentence, we were Canadian and we were going to do things differently! The idea, misguided as it was, followed that language was accrued in a child’s brain naturally through use and exposure. They just missed the giant part where exposure also included formal study in school. Thus, what little grammar I learned was from rebellious English teachers determined to stop the coming apostrapocalypse (they’re churning in their graves already except none of them are dead to my knowledge). Now, I won’t claim to have the perfect grasp of our grammar. My lessons were sporadic at best and it is in a child’s nature to abhor and rebel against the learning of such dry topics as grammar. I did, however, emerge knowing the difference between active and passive voice which would turn out to be something even some of my university professors fail to grasp.

But that’s a different story. What I want to focus on is the lessons on the serial comma – otherwise known as the Oxford Comma. Now, before some grammar pundit comes along and tries to dismiss my entire discussion because I misappropriate the use of a hyphen or semi-colon somewhere in this passage, I will put forth the disclaimer that I am no punctuation maven and it is only through use (whether it be misuse or not) that I hope to gain proficiency. So, if you wish to criticize my grammar because I dared to discuss grammar than to you I say, “Pffffffft.”

Now with that out of the way, back to the serial comma. Everyone is aware of The Rule. When listing a series of items, you must separate them all with a comma. Thus, if I wished to tell you about my friends Derek, Jeremy, and Heather I would separate them each as I have done. Except, that was not the lesson I was taught. My grammar teacher, an old and rather opinionated man originally from Britain, was adamant on the old method of serializing. One separates all the items except for the last. Thus, my friends would be Derek, Jeremy and Heather. I took a liking to this because there was something abrasive about the sight of that trailing comma before the conjunction. I mean, the comma is meant to separate items grammatically and the conjunction does that of its own accord. It was like the ever obnoxious “Now that that is done” structure. I’ve never liked unnecessary repetition and the serial comma was just that to me: unnecessary.

Of course, there are others that see things differently.

It’s a compelling argument for the Oxford comma, I will admit. Unless you are a fan of JFK and Stalin as strippers. Unfortunately, this is not nearly as hard and fast a rule as the United States Government Printing Office would like you to assume. Though it can offer clarity in an ambiguous sentence, the true mistake is thinking that this grammatical construct can remove ambiguity altogether. For example, had Ms. Maria offered the sentence as We invited the striper, JFK, and Stalin then we would have the lovely bottom example except poor Stalin would be sans pasties and pink bikini bottom. And no one would want to be missing that.

But we need not reserve ourselves to rather niche sentence structures for this common comma issue to arise. The Times once published this unintentionally entertaining sentence about a Peter Usinov documentary, “highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800 year old demigod and a dildo collector.”

Poor Mandela, there is really no way to construe this construct without it leaving some question about his character. Of course, the non Oxford reading would suggest three individuals or that Nelson Mandela is both an ancient being of legend and rabid collector of sexual  paraphernalia. The Oxford comma, while clarifying that he wouldn’t have walls of phallic symbols still suggests that he’s a being of cosmic proportions from antiquity.

This is best highlighted with the sentence: She traveled to Toronto with Kathie, a driver, and a cleaner.

Is it possible to parse this sentence with 100 percent certainty on how many people went to Toronto? Would removing a comma solve this? No, for both. We can’t tell if Kathie is a driver or if there was a separate person driving. Removing the last comma leaves the question whether a cleaner and driver tagged along or whether Kathie is capable of keeping an orderly house and navigating the highways.

Ultimately, all these examples aren’t resolved with finicky rules over punctuation use. The only way to clarify your intent is that tried and age old method of rewriting the sentence. For example:

She went to Toronto with Kathie, who was a driver and a cleaner.

She went to Toronto with Kathie, a driver, and with a cleaner.

She went with Kathie to Toronto with a driver and a cleaner.

Writing is more than just slapping a few words in proper grammatical structure and being done with the deal. It’s a matter of communication and insuring that your intent is conveyed as well as are able through the use of the structure and grammar of your language. Especially for English which embraces the ever shifting and evolving nature of communication between peoples. We haven’t institutionalized Shakespearean English and I think we’re all better for it. But we should be aware of what we’re trying to say and how we’re saying it to insure the message we wish to convey is the one being received. Sometimes this requires learning and following the traditional rules and structures. Other times, it necessitates a certain leniency and willingness to break tradition. Because sometimes we need a genderless third person singular pronoun and by God it is my right and heritage to use they even if it is “technically” incorrect. And until the grammar Nazis recognize and reinstate thy and thee they’ll just have to deal with it.