rules for commas...

According to the Chicago Manual, it's optional if it's a simple list, that is, a list of single items.

If it's a longer list like "going to the store, seeing a movie, grabbing dinner, and returning to the condo" a comma is required.

But, I do see the above in print without the "series" comma.

There are a lot of rules regarding the comma, and many of those rules are now "optional."

Usally consistency in style within a single work is the standard. If you use the series comma, use it throughout the work.

in England you don't use a comma after the final item in the list, before the and.

I have had this discussion with Roberta before, she knows a lot about it...

Don't use a comma if it's not needed. c.i.

Don't use a comma, if it's not needed. c.i.

C.I., you're funny. I, try not to use unneeded, commas, too.

Commas are being scaled back because time is money--and space is money, too.

Newspapers are aware of the time it takes to type the comma before the conjunction (where strictly speaking, it is not needed) and the space that the comma takes up on the page.

Therefore in the name of economy, the comma is cut.

The series comma (the comma that precedes the conjunction) is optional. House style dictates whether or not it is used in publications. Magazines and newspapers tend to not use the series comma. Books and scholarly works tend to use it. I prefer it because it makes things clear and easy to read.

There, Roberta explained it, and I agree re the clarity of using the series comma.

So, when I grew up, I think I learned to use it. And then I learned not to use it, and that has seemed to be true even up to now, although I have warred against not not using it (the one before the and) myself as I think not using it makes some meaning ambiguous.
So now that I know some publishers make it ok to use the comma before the and.... I am one happy cookie, and chocolate bar, and pretzel, and tiny little chocolate heart.

Just what I was about to say, fellow Brit.

Here's my comma question, which leads me to believe that ci's second post is correct.

In the first sentence of this post, I've used a comma to separate the subordinate clause (which...) from the main clause (Here's my comma question).

I've just done it again. I was taught that a subordinate clause should be separated from the main clause by a comma. In other words, the part of the sentence separated by the comma(s) is a qualifier to the main clause.

Example:

As it was a hot and sunny day, I drank a lot of water on Sunday.

Any comments? I wonder if I'm being affected/misguided by having studied German, which always uses commas for subordinate clauses.

kitchenpete, The rule I follow is that when the subordinate clause can be exchanged with the main clause, you can use a comma, but it's not necessary, because the meaning doesn't change. I drank a lot of water on Sunday as it was a hot and sunny day. c.i.

BTW, The people in Oz uses the same rules as you Brits. She kept insisting that the last comma in a series was not necessary, but we Yanks have been using commas out of old habit. Since we borrowed our language from the Brits, we should follow your rules. c.i.

When a subordinate clause starts the sentence, it should always be followed by a comma. Just like in the sentence I just wrote. When a subordinate clause follows the main clause, a comma should be used only when the subordinate clause is nonessential.

Roberta, What determines "nonessential?" c.i.

c.i., An essential clause is one that is necessary to the meaning of the sentence. A nonessential clause may provide additional information or a description, but it is not necessary to the meaning.

The package arrived after you left for the day. After you left for the day is essential to the sense of the sentence; it tells when something happened.

The package arrived a seven o'clock, after you left for the day. In this case, seven o'clock tells when, and after you left for the day provides additional information.

I like it when the comma before "because" is used correctly.

When the first part of the sentence has a negative word in it the comma's usage or lack of usage actually changes the meaning of the sentence.

"I didn't go to the movies, because I was sick."

vs.

"I didn't go to the movies because I was sick." (The implication here is that I went to the movies for a completely different reason, that is, "I didn't go to the movies because I was sick. I went to the movies because I happen to like horror flicks."

Not really a good example, but it's the best I can come up with this early.

Here's another consideration - when we have a sentence such as: "Rob, my best friend, Eli, my neighbor, and Paul came over yesterday," how many people did I entertain - three or five?

In a series where there are commas for other reasons, separate the items with a semi-colon for clarity. "Rob, my best friend; Eli, my neighbor; and Paul...."

(By the way, the answer to the above posed question is none as I am not very entertaining.)

Bermbits, Great example of when to use a semicolon. The fundamental purpose of punctuation is to make things clear.