*,\'(;-)/.?!:"...

[Nat]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

Wait a minute...so which is true? Medusa's version or Nat's?

I learned to go with the first (Medusa's version).

Can anyone substantiate this? Meaning, is this "official"?

I like wikipedia's take on it.

(I also get a sadistic charge from citing wikipedia - I imagine the three librarians in my family all feeling the urge to tsk concurrently when I do so).

Arguments for and against

Common arguments for consistent use of the serial comma:

1.Use of the comma is consistent with conventional practice.[11]
2.It better matches the spoken cadence of sentences.[12]
3.It can resolve ambiguity (see examples below).[13]
4.Its use is consistent with other means of separating items in a list (for example, when semicolons are used to separate items, a semicolon is consistently included before the last item, even when and or or is present).[14]

Common arguments against consistent use of the serial comma:

1.Use of the comma is inconsistent with conventional practice.[15]
2.The comma may introduce ambiguity (see examples below).
3.It is redundant in a simple list, since the and or the or serves by itself to mark the logical separation between the final two items.[16]
Many sources, however, are against both automatic use and automatic avoidance of the serial comma, making recommendations in a more nuanced way (see Usage and subsequent sections).

Also, I love the fact that Lynne Truss' Eats, Shoots & Leaves is quoted in the article:

"There are people who embrace the Oxford comma, and people who don't, and I'll just say this, never get between these people when drink has been taken."