The Oxford Comma

[Rothman]

"Let's eat[,] Grandma"  is not an Oxford comma issue. It's a direct address issue.

Also not an Oxford comma issue, but since we're on the topic, there should be a comma after "Inc." in the following:

Roadfan, Inc., is a company based in Ohio.

Nah.

Yes, actually, at least in Chicago style. The key bit is: "The trick in running text is that if you use one comma, you must use two."

So, nah.  One style does not dictate all.

Of course not. This was just an example. The point is that the usage in question is well attested and similar to the commas required in, say:

Martin Luther King, Jr., was a prominent civil rights leader.
December 9, 2019, was a Monday.
Wichita, Kansas, is not the capital of Ohio.

Just because it is required in one style doesn't mean that it is required here.  So, your initial assertion that you should have a comma like in your examples is incorrect.

[1995hoo]

He's correct. The comma after "Inc."  is not optional. "Inc."  is in the nature of an appositive, and appositives are set off by commas. It tells you which Roadfan is being mentioned. The year is similar–in CtrlAltDel's example, "2019"  tells you which December 9 fell on a Monday. It's not necessarily essential information and it could be omitted. But if you include it, you have to put commas both before and after the year. 

[Rothman]

He's correct. The comma after "Inc."  is not optional. "Inc."  is in the nature of an appositive, and appositives are set off by commas. It tells you which Roadfan is being mentioned. The year is similar–in CtrlAltDel's example, "2019"  tells you which December 9 fell on a Monday. It's not necessarily essential information and it could be omitted. But if you include it, you have to put commas both before and after the year.

Nah, it's not the nature of an appositive.

[1995hoo]

He's correct. The comma after "Inc."  is not optional. "Inc."  is in the nature of an appositive, and appositives are set off by commas. It tells you which Roadfan is being mentioned. The year is similar–in CtrlAltDel's example, "2019"  tells you which December 9 fell on a Monday. It's not necessarily essential information and it could be omitted. But if you include it, you have to put commas both before and after the year.

Nah, it's not the nature of an appositive.

Yes, it is. But the larger principle has to do with paired commas. A comma isn't always needed before "Inc." –some companies don't use one there, such as Corning Incorporated (they spell out that word, too). When there is no comma before "Inc."  (or another similar term like "LLC" ), a comma isn't needed afterwards either. But if a comma appears before it, a comma must appear after it as well. The standard is to write it the way the business does as to the comma before the "Inc."

True, it's not really an appositive. But it's like one. The "Inc."  isn't really needed for the sentence to work. It's like parenthetical information–that is, material that's helpful in the sentence but not essential to its meaning. "Roadfan, Inc., is a company based in Ohio."  "Roadfan is a company based in Ohio."  Both work equally well. Obviously you don't omit the closing parenthesis unless you made a typo. The same principle applies to a comma.

[Rothman]

Roadfan, Inc. is a company based in Ohio.

[1995hoo]

Roadfan, Inc. is a company based in Ohio.

You're missing a required comma in that sentence. (In keeping with this thread's subject, I will note it's definitely not an "Oxford comma issue,"  though!)

[CtrlAltDel]

Roadfan, Inc. is a company based in Ohio.

You’re missing a required comma in that sentence. (In keeping with this thread’s subject, I will note it’s definitely not an “Oxford comma issue,” though!)

As I learned last night, you're wasting your time. It would be best to move on and let him be wrong.

[1995hoo]

Roadfan, Inc. is a company based in Ohio.

You're missing a required comma in that sentence. (In keeping with this thread's subject, I will note it's definitely not an "Oxford comma issue,"  though!)

As I learned last night, you're wasting your time. It would be best to move on and let him be wrong.

I know. It doesn't affect me if he wants to display ignorance. But I'm having a boring morning at work! I found this in a New York Times article (link follows the quotation). I've left the original formatting in place, including not correcting their stylebook's erroneous omission of the serial comma and inclusion of spaces around the em dash. The way he explains the rationale for needing the commas is spot-on.

The Case of the Missing Comma
A related issue is the epidemic of missing commas after parenthetical phrases or appositives – that is, self-enclosed material that's within a sentence, but not essential to its meaning. The following sentences all lack a necessary comma. Can you spot where?

My father, who gave new meaning to the expression "hard working"  never took a vacation.

He was born in Des Moines, Iowa in 1964.

Philip Roth, author of "Portnoy's Complaint"  and many other books is a perennial contender for the Nobel Prize.

If you said "working,"  "Iowa"  and "books,"  give yourself full marks. I'm not sure why this particular mistake is so tempting. It may sometimes be because these phrases are so long that by the time we get to the end of them, we've forgotten about the first comma. In any case, a strategy to prevent it is to remember the acronym I.C.E. Whenever you find yourself using a comma before an Identification, Characterization or Explanation, remember that there has to be a comma after the I.C.E. as well.

Source:  https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/the-most-comma-mistakes/

I also asked my mom, a retired English teacher, if she could explain why the comma is needed after elements like "Inc." when you use a comma before the element. She sent me the photo below of the relevant page in The Gregg Reference Manual, although the problem with this source is that it gives the rule but doesn't explain the rationale behind the rule. She also said, "I agree with you. The rule of thumb for appositives is 'Put the comma in if you can leave the information out.'"





Thinking about this prompts me to remember a different comma-related issue that I find annoying. I suppose this should go in the "Minor things that annoy you" thread, but I'll put it here because it's comma-related.

I dislike the use of what I would call "adjectival dates" because I believe they cause awkward sentences. Examples: "I am in receipt of your December 10, 2019, letter." "In his December 9, 2019, press conference, Mike Rizzo announced Strasburg had re-signed with the Nationals." Both of these would read better without the years, but sometimes there's a reason why you need to include the year, and the comma after the year is not optional.

I frequently see that sort of thing in legal argument where matters have dragged on for a long time such that the year may be relevant. Both sentences would work better if re-written so the dates aren't used as adjectives: "I am in receipt of your letter dated December 10, 2019." "In a press conference on December 9, 2019, Mike Rizzo announced Strasburg had re-signed with the Nationals." (An even better solution that allows for the adjectival date would be to use the European day-month-year format–"I am in receipt of your 10 December 2019 letter"–because that format doesn't use any commas. But most Americans find that format unacceptable.)

[Rothman]

On second thought, I'll go with:  Roadfan Inc. is a company based in Ohio.

[1995hoo]

On second thought, I'll go with:  Roadfan Inc. is a company based in Ohio.

That would be correct, provided the company's name doesn't use a comma between "Roadfan"  and "Inc."

[kphoger]

He's correct. The comma after "Inc."  is not optional. "Inc."  is in the nature of an appositive, and appositives are set off by commas. It tells you which Roadfan is being mentioned. The year is similar–in CtrlAltDel's example, "2019"  tells you which December 9 fell on a Monday. It's not necessarily essential information and it could be omitted. But if you include it, you have to put commas both before and after the year. 

If an appositive is non-restrictive, then one should not use commas.  If an appositive is restrictive, then one should use commas.  The way to tell which is which is to remove the appositive from the sentence and see if it still makes sense.



Martin Luther King, Jr. (Note that using a comma at all has not been recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style since 1993.)

This, if it were a true appositive, would be restrictive.  Both he and his father were named Martin Luther King, and therefore the 'Jr.' is required to tell the reader which one the sentence is about.  Restrictive appositives are not set off with commas at all.



December 9, 2019

This, if it were a true appositive, might be restrictive in some cases and non-restrictive in others.

A volcano eruption in New Zealand left five people dead.  That tragic event on December 9 has prompted local officials to...

A volcano eruption in New Zealand left five people dead.  That tragic event on December 9, 2019, has prompted local officials to...

The addition of "2019" in the sentence above only adds extra detail that is not critical to the understanding of the sentence.  As such, it could be interpreted as non-restrictive.  Non-restrictive appositives are set off with a pair of commas.

However...

July 4 was to be a date that Jefferson's family would remember for centuries to come.

July 4, 1826, was to be a date that Jefferson's family would remember for centuries to come.

The addition of "1826" in the sentences above adds information necessary for the understanding of the sentence.  Two important things happened In Thomas Jefferson's life on July 4:  the thirteen colonies declared their independence on that date in 1776, and he died on that date in 1826.  Knowing the year is a critical piece of information in reading the sentence.  As such, it could be considered restrictive.  Restrictive appositives are not set off with a pair of commas.  So is that a case for writing it "July 4 1826" instead?  Is it a case for omitting only the final comma?  Is it a case for the year not really being like an appositive at all?  I'm leaning toward the latter.



Wichita, Kansas

This is similar to the date issue explained above, but I'll change it slightly.

Wichita County was always my favorite place to go for Christmas vacation.

Wichita County, Texas, was always my favorite place to go for Christmas Vacation.

If I've only ever gone to one county named Wichita for Christmas vacation, then the addition of "Texas" might be unnecessary.  In that case, it could be considered non-restrictive, and it would therefore need a pair commas to set it off.  If, on the other hand, I was known to visit the Kansas county named Wichita sometimes as well, then it could be considered a restrictive appositive.  As stated above, I'm leaning toward this being a case for the state name not really being like an appositive at all.



Roadfan, Inc.

The "Inc." is probably non-essential information, unless there's some other entity called Roadfan that the reader might call to mind instead.  This is further muddied by the fact that the comma before "Inc." might be part of the company's official name, in which case omitting it at all wouldn't be good.  To explain...

Roadfan Inc.
Roadfan, Inc.

If the entity's legal name includes the comma, then why would that fact alone require using another comma after "Inc."?  After all, that doesn't somehow make it an appositive at all:  it's simply part of the name. 

Pfangle Dangle America
Pfangle Dangle, America

If I start a company called "Pfangle Dangle America", then you wouldn't put a comma after "America" in a sentence.

If I start a company called "Pfangle Dangle, America", then there's no real grammatical reason to put one after "America" either.

[formulanone]

On second thought, I'll go with:  Roadfan Inc. is a company based in Ohio.

That would be correct, provided the company’s name doesn’t use a comma between “Roadfan” and “Inc.”

While we're at it, I've always found including "Inc." (or LLC, Corp, et al) to a company's name on anything other than a legal document to be rather unctuous.