
Oxford Comma Dispute Is Settled as Maine Drivers Get $5M - okket
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/oxford-comma-maine.html
======
niftich
Since the paragraph in question establishes two sets, why explicitly enumerate
one set, while relying on inline punctuation for another? This inconsistency
suggests that the two kinds of enumerations aren't similar; yet they are.
Their intersections define cases where the provision does or does not apply.
(EDIT: the accurate term for this is cartesian product.)

Explicit is better than implicit, even when the end result is more wordy.

There's dozens of ways to rephrase this, but here's one:

 _The overtime provision of this section does not apply in cases when any of
the hereby enumerated activities are done to any of the hereby enumerated
categories of items._

 _The activities are:_

 _(1) canning; (2) processing; (3) preserving; (4) freezing; (5) drying; (6)
marketing; (7) storing; (8) packing for shipment; (9) distributing._

 _The categories of items are:_

 _(1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; (3) Perishable foods._

Furthermore, there's an entire other line in this _same_ paragraph about egg
processing facilities above a certain size. This should be broken out
elsewhere.

------
tzs
Question: the Wikipedia article on this subject [1] gives this example as a
case where including the comma would create ambiguity:

    
    
      To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God
    

The ambiguity is that dedication could be read as a dedication to two
entities:

    
    
      To <my mother, Ayn Rand>, and <God>
    

or to three entities:

    
    
      To <my mother>, <Ayn Rand>, and <God>
    

I agree with that.

However, isn't it also ambiguous WITHOUT the Oxford comma?

It can be to three entities, same as with the comma:

    
    
      To <my mother>, <Ayn Rand> and <God>
    

but it could also be taken as to one entity:

    
    
      To <my mother>, <Ayn Rand and God>
    

The Wikipedia page (at the moment) does not consider the one entity
interpretation.

It seems to me that the ambiguity in this comes not from the Oxford comma's
presence or absence, but rather from whether or not the comma after "mother"
is part of an appositive phrase.

Offhand, I don't think I've seen an example where an unambiguous sentence
without an Oxford comma becomes ambiguous with the addition of the comma. All
the ones I can recall have another ambiguity from an appositive phrase or
similar without the Oxford comma and the Oxford comma at most just changes the
ambiguity.

On the other hand there are sentences that are unambiguous with the Oxford
comma that become ambiguous if it is removed.

This suggests that the Oxford comma should always be used when the list has
more than two items, and it is appositive phrases that we need to be
scrutinizing.

For appositive phrases, maybe we should use parenthesis instead of comma? In
the above examples the appositive phrase cases become:

    
    
      To my mother (Ayn Rand) and God
    
      To my mother (Ayn Rand and God)
    

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma)

~~~
kspiteri
"To my mother, Ayn Rand and my daughter" is not ambiguous without the Oxford
comma, but would be with it.

~~~
drblast
That seems ambiguous to me. Is the mother Ayn Rand or not?

The presence of the Oxford comma, or lack thereof doesn't seem to affect the
ambiguity.

~~~
grzm
> _" To my mother, Ayn Rand and my daughter"_

\- _Ayn Rand_ can't be in apposition of _my mother_ as there's no comma
setting _Ayn Rand_ off from _my daughter_

\- Similarly, _Ayn Rand_ and _my daughter_ are not in apposition

\- _my daughter_ and _my mother_ are mutually exclusive

This is described in more detail here:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma#Ambiguity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma#Ambiguity)

> _" To my mother, Ayn Rand, and my daughter"_

Adding the Oxford comma creates ambiguity between _my mother_ and _Ayn Rand_ ,
unless the speaker is Ayn Rand's daughter.

~~~
cryptonector
But here we're using semantics to disambiguate. It works, sure, but it works
in fewer cases than punctuating/rephrasing to avoid the ambiguity
grammatically rather than semantically.

Semantic disambiguation also imposes a higher cognitive load on the reader --
sometimes that's the point (high-brow writin'). But you should consider the
poor reader. After all, you want to be read and understood.

~~~
grzm
Sure, which is why I mentioned the exception. The whole point of the example
is to show there are cases where the Oxford comma alone doesn’t prevent
ambiguity in all cases. I’m not arguing that the Oxford comma is silly. I’m
just explaining how the example can be ambiguous. Language is messy and
wonderful and frustrating and fun!

------
thaumaturgy
That clever bastard dropped an Oxford comma right from the very first sentence
of the article.

(I understand the Times style guide advises against it. I'm still pretty sure
he did it on purpose.)

~~~
ASalazarMX
> Ending a case that electrified punctuation pedants, grammar goons and comma
> connoisseurs, Oakhurst Dairy settled an overtime dispute with its drivers
> that hinged entirely on the lack of an Oxford comma in state law.

I see no Oxford comma there. Am I missing something?

~~~
chrisseaton
He dropped the comma from the sentence, so it isn't there. That's the point.

~~~
ASalazarMX
Ah, thanks. Now I understand.

------
ivoras
Uhmh, can anyone elaborate on exactly why someone driving perishable food
should be _exempt from overtime pay_? Isn't it a bit ass-backwards: exactly
those who need to work overtime so the food doesn't spoil are the ones who
cannot get overtime? Am I reading that correctly?

~~~
wvenable
If you are an IT worker you're probably exempt from overtime pay as well. Does
nobody bat an eye at this? How is this even justified?

~~~
Spooky23
Look at the comment in this thread declaring that you’re unreasonable to
expect overtime compensation if you should “expect” overtime because of the
nature of the work. That’s not a fringe opinion.

We live in an era where the rights of workers and individuals is held in
contempt by those in business and government. If you aren’t wealthy, you’re
defective.

~~~
wvenable
We live in an era where the rights of workers is held in contempt by workers.
Everybody wants to drag everyone else down.

~~~
mathgladiator
There is wisdom here, and it takes courage and empathy to focus on building
people up.

As a tech lead, I have made it my sacred duty to build people up rather than
exploit them as 'resources'.

------
joeax
As an author I laugh whenever I hear about the big debate over the Oxford
comma. It's the literary equivalent to the big curly brace on the same vs next
line. However, in this instance, as well as certain code scenarios in
JavaScript, structuring it one way or another can affect the semantics.

Like code, disambiguating my text is why I generally favor using the Oxford
comma in my writing. Not using it is the equivalent to not using parenthesis
in a complex logical expression, and defaulting to known order of operations.

Say you want to express:

    
    
      Jane and Tom, Bill and Wendy, or Susie and Frank.
    

In code you would be unambiguous with:

    
    
      (Jane && Tom) || (Bill && Wendy) || (Susie && Frank)
    

So why omit the Oxford comma when it is necessary to disambiguate? It would
have saved both parties, as well as the state of Maine a lot of time, money,
and headache.

~~~
pierrefar
Speaking of commas, you're missing one after the end of the interrupting
phrase in your last sentence (should say ", as well as the state of Maine,").
It's a pet peeve bigger than the lack of Oxford commas, and definitely affects
readability and may affect meaning.

~~~
joeax
Ha ha thank you.

------
kevinmhickey
Feels like they could have made this even simpler by reordering the
exemptions. For example:

The distribution, canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying,
marketing, storing or packing for shipment of:

I'm a fan of the Oxford comma and think it would still add clarity here. The
semicolon solution is ham-fisted and unnecessary.

~~~
patorjk
But doesn't that make "storing" ambiguous? It could mean "storing" of the 3
following categories, or "storing for shipment" of the 3 following categories.

~~~
kevinmhickey
Fair point. I suppose that means the Oxford comma is actually necessary in
this case.

------
tomsmeding
The interpretation that considers "packing for distribution" as an exemption
and not "distribution" makes for a grammatically incorrect sentence in any
case.

"A, B, C or D" is a correct sentence without Oxford comma, and the structure
used originally. "A, B, C, or D" is also correct, and does have the Oxford
comma. But the interpretation I mentioned reads the sentence as "A, B, C" \--
where C is the whole of "packing for shipment or distribution". You need
something there, either "and" or "or" or something similar. I'd say the
language is perfectly unambiguous, if a little strained. But that's just law
texts in general.

Edit: consistency

------
cperciva
I'm as big a fan of the Oxford comma as anyone, but the court ruling here was
ridiculous. External evidence, including the state legislature's style guide,
made it perfectly clear what the law meant.

~~~
behindmyscreen
style guides are not laws and if the style guide changes it changes the
meaning of the law.

~~~
nv-vn
Yes, but the intent of a law matters. It's why it goes to court in the first
place. I mean the meaning here is pretty clear, different from a real legal
loophole where the system just hasn't been thoroughly planned.

------
BenjiWiebe
Just my 2c: to me the original is really really hard to parse. I'm not sure
why, but it just doesn't make sense to me.

------
userbinator
Things like this are why I really think people should learn boolean
expressions --- they are unambiguous:

    
    
        (canning ||
         processing ||
         preserving ||
         freezing ||
         drying ||
         marketing ||
         storing ||
         packing for shipment ||
         distribution)
        of
        (Agricultural produce &&
         Meat and fish products &&
         Perishable foods)
    

(Curiously enough, the list of items is combined with AND and not OR --- so
presumably, something which does not satisfy one of those conditions is _not_
exempt?)

Incidentally, this also explains the content of the LSAT, as discussed
previously at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15683658](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15683658)

------
bencoder
Can someone explain why these exemptions exist in the first place?

~~~
logfromblammo
The industry lobbied for them, and there was no workers' union to tell the
other side of the story.

It seems to me like the intent is to avoid economic waste due to spoilage of
perishable goods that might otherwise be sold, but for a dearth of timely
labor.

It also seems like the burden should be on the employer to hire more laborers
if they have need of more labor, or to demonstrate some reasonable level of
urgency that would have prevented hiring.

Since this suit covered _years_ of unpaid overtime, it is clear to me that
someone bought themselves a "F U" law that only benefits their own selfish
interests, at the expense of someone else. It is likely responsible for the
failure of the business to hire an additional permanent driver employee, or to
ever employ a contractor to pick up the slack during rushes and crunches.

------
cryptonector
Speaking of ambiguity:

> (In most cases, The Times stylebook discourages the serial comma, often
> called the Oxford comma because it was traditionally used by the Oxford
> University Press.)

Does the Times just not like styling ideas from the Oxford University Press,
or is the name "Oxford comma" derived from its traditional use by the Oxford
University Press, or both?

What does the Times have against the Oxford University Press, or the Oxford
comma, anyways?

~~~
aaronbrethorst
The Oxford comma is opposed by the NYT editors, Hitler and Stalin.

------
ronnier
Is their overlap strong between people who want to leave the comma out with
the set of people who don't use semicolons in javascript?

------
s73v3r_
Maybe the easiest way to settle things like this would be to simply not give
exemptions for overtime pay.

------
paulcole
To paraphrase one of my favorite quotes (from the guy who developed Comic
Sans):

If you really love the Oxford Comma you don't know much about writing and need
a new hobby. If you really hate the Oxford Comma you don't know much about
writing and need a new hobby.

~~~
behindmyscreen
You might have been implying this with your parenthetical but, just to say it,
the irony is that the same guy created Comic Sans.

~~~
paulcole
I wasn't implying that, just giving him credit for a great quote.

> In an interview for the Huffington Post, Vincent Connare, designer of Comic
> Sans, said, “if you love Comic Sans, you don’t know anything about
> typography. But if you hate Comic Sans, then you don’t know anything about
> typography either…and you should get another hobby”.

~~~
bihnkim
In that case you didn't paraphrase the quote so much as repurpose it.

~~~
ggm
its neither a paraphrase nor a repurpose, because its not the quote, and its
boolean logic doesn't equate to the quote either, comma or not. The original
quote only appends "get a new hobby" to one side of the decision logic. This
quote has it on both.

Obey De-Morgans law, or not. Yoda doesn't care.

------
sideshowb
Please can we now have a lawsuit punishing somebody for using "less" rather
than "fewer"?

------
wvenable
This says it all:
[https://i.imgur.com/fycHx.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fycHx.jpg)

