A quick question

Now you're in the right place. Stand by for answers.

One period.

But it's sometimes better to rewrite a sentence like that. " . . . red, blue, green, and other colors." Or something similiar.

And you do need a comma after "green" in your example.

Or you could spell "etc." out, but it okay to use "etc." in scentific papers as far as I know. I haven't looked in a guidebook.

alleycat said:

. . . And you do need a comma after "green" in your example.

Click to expand...

Depends on the style guide. Chicago, yes. Strunk & White, yes. AP, no. It is called the serial comma. Small wars have been fought over it. I believe AP is simply wrong on the point.

Use of abbreviations also depends on the applicable style guide and editorial preferences. In text, "etc." is clunky.

--Ken

ResearchGuy said:

Depends on the style guide. Chicago, yes. Strunk & White, yes. AP, no. It is called the serial comma. Small wars have been fought over it. I believe AP is simply wrong on the point.

Use of abbreviations also depends on the applicable style guide and editorial preferences. In text, "etc." is clunky.

--Ken

Click to expand...

That's not a case of using a serial comma or not, is it?

It was " . . . red, blue, green etc." not " . . . red, blue, green and brown".

As for the debate over serial commas, I've taken part in a few myself. I don't think it matters too much in fiction, but I think it's better to use it in non-fiction and avoid the possibility of the list of items being read incorrectly.

alleycat said:

That's not a case of using a serial comma or not, is it?

It was " . . . red, blue, green etc." not " . . . red, blue, green and brown".
. . .

Click to expand...

It is a distinction without a difference as far as I am concerned. In that fragment, "etc." is just another item in the list. In any event, "etc." is the abbreviation of "et cetera," which means "and the rest" or "and others."

FWIW, "etc." is normally set off by a comma before (and after, for that matter, unless it ends the sentence). See Chicago Manual of Style, 15/e, section 6.22.

You are right here:

I think it's better to use it in non-fiction and avoid the possibility of the list of items being read incorrectly.

Click to expand...

That potential for reading incorrectly is precisely the reason for the serial comma, although the full explanation calls for examples and discussion way beyond what I want to go into here or that anyone would want to read here. Usually, omission of that comma does not lead to ambiguity. Sometimes it does. And that is the reason to use it without exception. (Even in fiction, in my opinion, although one might argue that dialogue can present special cases.)

By the way, about "etc.," this from the Chicago Manual section cited above: "The use of etc. in formal prose is frowned on, though it is acceptable in lists and tables and within parentheses."

--Ken

ResearchGuy said:

It is a distinction without a difference as far as I am concerned. In that fragment, "etc." is just another item in the list.

Click to expand...

I'm going to politely disagree with you on that one, but I don't claim to be a grammar guru. I believe a comma would always be called for after the word "green" in the original example (and isn't part of the never-ending serial comma debate). Or maybe we're saying the same thing.

Actually, I'm so old-fashioned I still refer to it half the time as the "Oxford comma".

alleycat said:

I'm going to politely disagree with you on that one, but I don't claim to be a grammar guru. I believe a comma would always be called for after the word "green" in the original example (and isn't part of the never-ending serial comma debate). Or maybe we're saying the same thing.

Actually, I'm so old-fashioned I still refer to it half the time as the "Oxford comma".

Click to expand...

Perhaps I was unclear. Not unusual.

I think we are not in disagreement. Not really.

I have not heard the term "Oxford comma," but I am guessing it is another term for the serial comma. (A quick Googling verifies that. For example, http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutother/oxfordcomma.) It is an odd term to me, though, as the Brits seem to omit the serial comma. That must be why Oxford's use of it stands out and it earned the name "Oxford comma."

I am pretty sure that I was taught in elementary school to omit the comma before "and" and "or" (that is, not to use the serial comma). Decades of reading, writing, and editing have demonstrated that the instruction was wrong unless one is obligated to follow Associated Press style.

Yes, that particular example is confusing because of the "etc.," which requires it anyway. See my comment on the Chicago Manual section Section 6.22.

As I said, "the full explanation [of the serial comma and the reasoning behind it] calls for examples and discussion way beyond what I want to go into here."

--Ken

P.S. Many folks might not realize that etc. is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase et cetera, meaning "and others." (It always irks me to see the abbreviation mis-written as "ect." -- a sign of impaired education.) In any event, that is why "red, blue, green, etc.," or in other words, "red, blue, green, et cetera," is equivalent to "red, blue, green, and others." That is why I said it is a distinction without a difference. "Etc." stands in for "and" plus the last item in the list ("others"). However, the Chicago Manual would have a comma if only one item preceded "etc." (For example, "That model comes in red, etc.") The comma indicates the (very brief) pause that would normally be in the spoken phrase. My own advice to writers is to avoid "etc." in formal writing (and, for that matter, to avoid other Latin abbreviations, which are often misused and misunderstood anyway). I wrote a style guide for the California Research Bureau (available via a link on my website), and wrote and edited reports for CRB for many years, so I am not completely without pertinent experience here. Most folks never really have to think about these kinds of details. I did.

Yeah, we're pretty much on the same page.

I was taught the same thing in elementary school (omit the last comma); then in college it became problematic. Now I use it all the time.

What I meant when I said I don't think it matter as much in fiction is that the serial comma can be used if it's needed to make the list of items clear, and not used if the list of items is clear without it. I know . . . consistency, consistency, consistency . . . but I think the "rules" are a little more flexible in fiction than in most non-fction, and certainly than in academic papers.

Uh, oh. I hope I haven't opened another can of worms.