The Oxford comma: an age-old debate for grammar nerds. (Editor’s note: the editorial team at Law Street insists on using the Oxford comma. We know it’s not AP Style. We’re okay with that.) But those of us in favor of the Oxford comma got a little validation this week, in the form of a court ruling in a Maine labor dispute.

In 2014, a company called Oakhurst Dairy was sued by three of its truck drivers. They claim that they were not given sufficient overtime pay. Maine’s rules state that overtime pay doesn’t apply to:

The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of:

(1) Agricultural produce;

(2) Meat and fish products; and

(3) Perishable foods.

Notice that the first sentence doesn’t include an Oxford comma. If it did, the sentence would read “the canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment, or distribution of” and would clearly designate “packing for shipment” and “distribution” as two different activities. But as it reads, without the Oxford comma, it only designates packing the items for shipping or distribution as an exempt activity, not the actual distribution itself. This matters because the truck drivers were responsible for distribution. According to Nick McCrea, of the Bangor Daily News:

The drivers read the passage to say that people who take part in packing for either shipment or distribution are exempt. Distribution wasn’t its own category as written, and because drivers don’t do any packing for either of those purposes, the law doesn’t apply to them, the drivers argued. Also, if ‘distribution’ was meant to be its own exempt activity, why isn’t it written as a gerund (word ending in ‘-ing’) like all the other activities in the list?

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit released a 30-page decision about the matter that began with: “For want of a comma, we have this case.” The Circuit court ruled in favor of the drivers, overturning an earlier district court ruling in favor of Oakhurst.

This comma kerfuffle may have just been a matter of time, because the guidelines Maine has for drafting its legislation specifically recommends avoiding the Oxford comma, stating: “don’t use a comma between the penultimate and last item in a series.” But just because Maine doesn’t recommend an Oxford comma, it doesn’t make up for the fact that the law was ambiguous, which was what led the court to rule in the drivers’ favor.

It’s unclear on whether or not Oakhurst plans on pursuing any further appeals. But fellow lovers of the Oxford comma, rejoice–we should feel vindicated, joyful, and content today.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Court Ruling Shows How the Oxford Comma is Correct, Useful, and Wonderful appeared first on Law Street.

Recently, Weird Al Yankovic used his song “Word Crimes” to teach us all how to not make idiots of ourselves when using grammar, but it seems as if not everyone was listening. One man’s lack of attention to basic middle school language rules has created what could literally be a word crime (and Mr. Yankovic, if you somehow read this, I mean literally in its proper definition, so please don’t “smack a crowbar upside [my] stupid head.”)

Before I get into the possible crime, though, it’s time for another overdue language lesson. Homo is derived from the Latin for human, and is used in the genus classification seen in the term for the modern human, Homo sapiens. That’s right: we’re all homos. It’s also used as a Greek prefix that means “same,” as in homosexual, meaning someone who is attracted to a person of the same sex.

Another example of the homo prefix is seen in the word homophone, which refers to words that have the same sound but do not have the same meaning.

Courtesy of Funnyjunk.

Examples of homophones can be seen in the following table.

Homo-sounding Words

Urban Dictionary Definitions

My Clever Examples

Ferry

To transport internationally, or across water.

I’d love people to ferry copies of this post to other lands.

Fairy

A gay man who acts more stereotypically feminine than most straight women.

That fairy convinced me to support gay rights with his fine use of diction.

Gaze

In blog terminology, to glare with silent disapproval at a troll who has intentionally attempted to derail a topic.

If people have off-topic comments to this post, all I need to do is type “GAZE“.

Gays

A homosexual male or female.

I backed the gays at the pride parade because they used proper syntax.

Quean

The proper term for a homosexual ‘queen’ (from Elizabethan English: a male or female who sells himself for sex.) (I could have also chosen “very homosexual jeans” here.)

Yon quean not only wore a superlative gown, he also had perfect nomenclature (said in a pompous voice.)

Queen

A flamboyant homosexual, usually male, always fabulous.

That queen rocked his dress and sounded smart while doing it (said in a fabulous voice while snapping in a z formation.)

Basically, what you should learn from the above is that when someone writes about homophones, it probably has nothing to do specifically with homosexuals (except when my examples are used.) But try telling that to Clarke Woodger.

Woodger allegedly decided that one of the employees at the Norman Global Language Centre, a place teaching English as a Second Language (ESL), was out of line for writing a blog post on the very controversial world of similar-sounding words.

The employer seems to be of the opinion that ESL learners might be able to recognize the term homo, but only in the one context. Since it would be inconceivable that an ESL learning center could teach anyone that a word might have an alternate meaning, Woodger thought it best to just not ever use the word homo in any context ever. Because, you know, you don’t want anyone to mistakenly link you to the gay agenda – though the idiot agenda is perfectly acceptable.

Courtesy of Quick Meme.

Woodger purportedly demonstrated the above opinion when he fired an employee for writing an illicit homo-centric grammar post. Tim Torkildson, the dirty-minded teacher who wrote the post in question, claimed that as he was being fired, he was told the “blog about homophones was the last straw” and that the school was now “going to be associated with homosexuality.”

To be fair, I should mention that Woodger did rationally defend himself. According to him, the reason he acted the way he did was that people at this level of English learning “may see the ‘homo’ side and think it has something to do with gay sex.” Good point, Mr. Woodger, you’ve one me to you’re side – whoops, I meant you’ve won me to your side. If only there was some way to learn the difference between those same-sounding words.

Courtesy of Cheezburger.

I hope we all agree that, assuming this actually happened, Woodger is a dam unreel fool of a mail who aired in his judgment, kneads to take a chill pill, and should develop some tacked. Or something like that. But is what he did a word crime in its most literal sense?

It depends on the state and whether this fits under that state’s employment at-will exceptions. This particular story took place in Utah, where a man may marry as many people as he wants so long as all the people he wants to marry are female. In Utah, employment discrimination against LGBT individuals is not yet prohibited. That being said, I’d have to say that this means that any LGBT supporter, whether that support is intentional or just through an inappropriate grammar lesson, would also not be protected.

Drat! It appears as if it is unlikely that a word crime was committed here; however, if this had happened in a more liberal state, let’s say California, it probably would have been. So, I stand by my claim that it is literally possible to commit a word crime.

Maybe one day we will live in a land where these offensive grammar violations are banned everywhere. Until that day, let us fight against blatant homophonia by teaching future generations tolerance for the English language and all of its variable meanings.

(You earn bonus points if you see all the many, many homophones scattered throughout this epic tale.)

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured image courtesy of [Katy via Flickr].

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Heterophones…Because Homophones Are Just Too Suggestive appeared first on Law Street.