Benjamin Franklin is noted for focusing us on the importance of the little things. The little things add up. He addressed this using a horseshoe nail, which many today may not even know exists:
“For the want of a nail the shoe was lost,For the want of a shoe, the horse was lost,For the want of a horse, the rider was lost,For the want of a rider, the battle was lost,For the want of a battle, the kingdom was lost,And all for the want of a horseshoe-nail.”
See, the nail holds the shoe to the hoof of the horse that the rider rides into battle to save the kingdom. Lose the nail, and it all erodes downhill. That came to mind recently when I revisited the structure provided by our language. Words matter, and so does punctuation. I stressed this in I Never Knew Oxford had a Comma (March 2017).
That was several years ago. As an aside, has anyone else begun referring to periods in history as "pre-COVID" and "post-COVID"? Just asking for a friend.
The Oxford piece highlights the importance of a simple, little, and critical punctuation mark (see what I did there?). The comma may be extremely important. The Oxford piece describes an instance in Maine where a statute omitted such an "Oxford comma," and the results were significant.
The absence of an Oxford Comma in the Maine instance resulted in a multimillion-dollar settlement regarding overtime pay. The British Broadcasting Company (it is noted that this publication may have credibility challenges) reported that the "lack of a comma" between two words resulted in a significant payout. Other reports noted the missing comma created a "loophole." See e.g., Scripps News, Artlangs, and others.
Discussing the financial loss, the BBC cites some examples with a focus shifted from loss caused by missing punctuation to a platitude about not "feeling too sorry for the firm" and noting its overall past profits. The implication is you cannot feel sorry for someone who suffers a loss if their life otherwise is rosy. That seems a bit distracted. There, the perspective is perhaps less about the comma and more about an amorphous fairness or equity.
The linchpin there is the Oxford comma, and it is back in the news in Arizona workers' compensation. Two lawmakers are backing legislation "to correct what firefighters say is a missing comma." This is characterized as a "punctuation error" that creates "a loophole" that makes firefighters "fight for their benefits."
The law in question is one of the "presumption" statutes that are featured at many educational programs. There has been a trend towards treating certain workers, occupations, or maladies differently under the law across the country. These are not necessarily identical state laws but are seemingly generalized as "presumptions." Within that population, there are various distinctions and differences that are perhaps worthy of discussion.
In Arizona, according to ABC15, there is no comma included "after the word 'adenocarcinoma.'" their statute reads:
"Any disease, infirmity or impairment of a firefighter's or fire investigator's health that is caused by brain, bladder, rectal or colon cancer, lymphoma, leukemia or adenocarcinoma or mesothelioma of the respiratory tract and that results in disability ..."
This is being interpreted as creating a presumption for "adenocarcinoma" only if it is adenocarcinoma "of the respiratory tract." The argument is that if a broader definition were intended, there would be a comma (adenocarcinoma, or mesothelioma).
The discussion is worthy of consideration. The legislature conceives, drafts, and passes laws. The choices of words, punctuation, and organization are all open for discussion and debate. Most have professional drafters, proofreaders, and subject-matter experts. Once the law is passed, the world will then operate under its definitions and delineations.
There can be discussions of what someone may have intended words or punctuation to mean. Nonetheless, in the end, the real point is not intention or feelings, but simply what the words and punctuation say. When careful, collaborative, and ponderous processes reach results, perhaps the intent is in the patent, plain, and published words? The Arizona debate may remind those who draft legislation, regulation, or policy (notice that?) of the importance of punctuation.
The commas here are red for a purpose. They are illustrative. The Oxford comma is critical in some settings. And "for want of a comma," what may be lost?
The intent of those who wrote the Arizona law does not change the debate about what any such language could mean. Nonetheless, that is a different debate than what the language does mean.
