Comma again

Manach

As an FYI for the Grammar types, the following case hinged around the usage of an "Oxford comma".
"Oakhurst Dairy settled an overtime dispute with its drivers that hinged entirely on the lack of an Oxford comma in state law." - https://nyti.ms/2BNbSkc

Thus like the outcome of Rodger Casement's trial for treason, comma usage is tricky.

hullaballoo

What's really weird is what they've done to "remedy" the absence of the comma. Instead of just, well, inserting the missing comma, they've replaced every comma with a semicolon and added another semicolon where the missing comma should be. (Also, is annoying that the article is misdescribing the comma as an "Oxford comma" when its purpose is entirely different to that, redundant, device.)

Anyway, the section now reads:-

"...The overtime provision of this section does not apply to:
...
F. The canning; processing; preserving; freezing; drying; marketing; storing; packing for shipment; or distributing of:
(1) Agricultural produce;
(2) Meat and fish products; and
(3) Perishable foods."

That makes no sense at all to me.

Samuel T. Cogley

Looks like Pascal code. Jesus that's a long time ago.

Comment

STC, r u not watching the rugby?. As important a part of a barrister's formation as those KI dinners:)

nuac

Marcusm

hullaballoo wrote: »

What's really weird is what they've done to "remedy" the absence of the comma. Instead of just, well, inserting the missing comma, they've replaced every comma with a semicolon and added another semicolon where the missing comma should be. (Also, is annoying that the article is misdescribing the comma as an "Oxford comma" when its purpose is entirely different to that, redundant, device.)

Anyway, the section now reads:-

"...The overtime provision of this section does not apply to:
...
F. The canning; processing; preserving; freezing; drying; marketing; storing; packing for shipment; or distributing of:
(1) Agricultural produce;
(2) Meat and fish products; and
(3) Perishable foods."

That makes no sense at all to me.

Do you mean you think it was absolutely clear before? I can see that the absence of a separator (comma or semi-colon) between “shipment” and “or” would easily lead to a dispute as to whether the activities of the truckers were included in the overtime exclusion - I.e. whether packing for ... distribution” or “packing ... or distribution”. Is it only the plant workers who are excluded or also the truckers. This is precisely the academic exercise which intrigues me.