: Re: Should items separated by commas be alphabetical? When writing a list of items, should they be alphabetical? The late Jurassic periods are Tithonian, Kimmeridgian, and Oxfordian. better? The late

@Rambettina586

There's no rule about the order of listed elements, so this is not a question of grammar, but of style.
There are a few different approaches you could take:

An alphabetical order might make it easier for readers to remember the elements. (However, if it's about ease of memorisation, a better approach might be to see if one particular order creates a memorable word when putting the initials together, and use that.)

Sometimes, you can go by what sounds best. I know this is really subjective, but for me it usually involves the starting letter of each word and the number of syllables. In your example, "Oxfordian" and "Tithonian" have the same number of syllables, so if it's a matter of style, I wouldn't squeeze the longer one between them.

Often, lists get sorted in order of importance, by either listing the most or least important first. For example, if the rest of the paragraph were to focus on one of these periods, I would list that one last.

However, in your example, you are talking about geological eras, so I would actually sort them chronologically. Maybe you could describe this as the order that "makes sense". (For example, in this related question, the asker suggests ordering articles of clothing from head to feet.)

Vote Up Vote Down

0 Reactions   React

Replies (0) Report

Login to post a comment!