Agreed. The Oxford comma is superfluous in a list of adjectives.
If you’re listing adjectives that modify a single noun, there is no ambiguous regrouping of those adjectives that can change their meaning. They all still modify the noun. If you are listing nouns, as in the popular “strippers, JFK, and Stalin” meme, then there is room for confusion and the comma helps to clarify.
Regardless, if the intent is clear, it’s a silly rule to get nitpicky about. Fuck the haters.
The only rule that really matters in the end is to take good care of your readers. The little rules only ease the burden; if you want rules about how to talk, do software instead of English.
It changes how I read it though. I expect the list to continue so I read it as if it will, then it doesn’t and the rhythm is off. Not a huge deal, like you say, the intent is clear enough. But it does still add clarity for intended sentence fluency, at least for those of us with strict Oxford comma discipline, lol.
Agreed. The Oxford comma is superfluous in a list of adjectives.
If you’re listing adjectives that modify a single noun, there is no ambiguous regrouping of those adjectives that can change their meaning. They all still modify the noun. If you are listing nouns, as in the popular “strippers, JFK, and Stalin” meme, then there is room for confusion and the comma helps to clarify.
Regardless, if the intent is clear, it’s a silly rule to get nitpicky about. Fuck the haters.
The only rule that really matters in the end is to take good care of your readers. The little rules only ease the burden; if you want rules about how to talk, do software instead of English.
It changes how I read it though. I expect the list to continue so I read it as if it will, then it doesn’t and the rhythm is off. Not a huge deal, like you say, the intent is clear enough. But it does still add clarity for intended sentence fluency, at least for those of us with strict Oxford comma discipline, lol.