34

When using the phrase "including but not limited to", how should it be punctuated?

When used in the following (no punctuation):

There are many activities including but not limited to running jumping and swimming

My first try:

There are many activities including, but not limited to, running, jumping, and swimming.

Then I thought... maybe I need another one? Is this, or perhaps the previous version correct?

There are many activities, including, but not limited to, running, jumping, and swimming.

Eh, maybe that's too many.

Does this justify a colon?

Is it orthographically correct?

With or without the first comma in parens?

There are many activities(,) including, but not limited to: running, jumping, and swimming.

No? Then what about this?

There are many activities, including - but not limited to - running, jumping, and swimming.

Improve this question
5
  • Either of the last two would be acceptable to me, were I an English examiner, Cory. The first I am ruling out, because you really do need a comma after activities, the rest of the sentence being subordinate to what has gone before. The words 'but not limited to' also need a pair of commas or dashes either side, as they are obviously a subordinate clause. A good test of where to put the pair of commas is to see if the sentence makes grammatical sense if you simply remove the words between the commas. In this case it clearly does that. You have a very good grasp of all this.
    – user52780
    Sep 30, 2013 at 20:34
  • 2
    Not really a long enough list of things to justify a colon. Others may disagree.
    – user52780
    Sep 30, 2013 at 20:37
  • 2
    I don't see the need for 'but not limited to'. If you really want emphasis here, go with the dashes as in your final example - the others are less easy on the eye (in my opinion). I'd use the comma before the 'and' - guess where I took my degree.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Sep 30, 2013 at 21:24
  • 1
    Oxford comma! Use it!
    – derelict
    Jul 14, 2014 at 20:29
  • Parentheses can be used here: "There are many activities, including (but not limited to) running, jumping, and swimming."
    – Endy Tjahjono
    Nov 2, 2015 at 7:27

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
26

My choice would be:

There are many activities, including, but not limited to, running, jumping and swimming.

The comma before including shows that a new clause, even if it’s a non-finite clause, is to follow, and the comma before but and after to, indicates a weak interruption to that clause. The comma between running and jumping shows that the two are to be read as part of a list, but no comma is required after jumping, because and makes it superfluous.

Improve this answer
1
12

"including but not limited to" is lawyer-speak, and comes from a lawyer's need to make sure that no one can ever, in any way, under any circumstances, think that "including" is all-inclusive. Merriam-Webster online says "including" means "to have (someone or something) as part of a group or total : to contain (someone or something) in a group or as a part of something : to make (someone or something) a part of something." So "including" has as part of its definition the fact that it is not all inclusive. Therefore "including but not limited to" is redundant (unless you are a lawyer writing a contract). Just use "including."

Improve this answer
1
  • Sometimes it makes sense to add redundant words for emphasis. It makes sense for lawyers, yes, but also academics and anyone writing a technical document where they want to actively make the reader pay attention to the fact that other items should be considered.
    – Noam Nelke
    Jan 16, 2022 at 20:35
1

Comma use is subjective and in most, but not all cases is a style choice. The only place in that sentence where commas are required is in the list at the end (running, jumping, and swimming). The comma that I've used before and is called an Oxford comma and not all speakers feel it's necessary to include it, so that's a style choice as well.

I place punctuation according to how I want the sentence to be read whenever it's not an issue of proper grammar.

For effect I might say:

There are many activities, including, but not limited to, running, jumping, and swimming.

That slows down the tempo.

As for the dashes, I don't think they're appropriate. If you want to use a colon, it would be more like this:

There are many activities, including but not limited to: running, jumping, and swimming.

But all of the following are grammatically correct:

There are many activities, including, but not limited to, running, jumping, and swimming.
There are many activities, including but not limited to, running, jumping, and swimming.
There are many activities including but not limited to running, jumping, and swimming.
There are many activities, including, but not limited to, running, jumping and swimming.
There are many activities, including but not limited to, running, jumping and swimming.
There are many activities including but not limited to running, jumping and swimming.
Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    The Oxford comma, which follows the penultimate term in a series, is known in the United States as a serial comma.
    – Joan Pederson
    Feb 26, 2014 at 1:53
  • 1
    The oxford comma has been clearly pointed out to be "required" here: buzzfeed.com/adamdavis/… This may convert some of us to never again omit an oxford comma.
    – KnightHawk
    Jun 30, 2014 at 13:35
0

I believe that the comma before "and" IS necessary, as it is the difference between doing either activity separately and doing both at the same time.

There are many activities, including, but not limited to, running, jumping and swimming.

  1. Running
  2. Jumping and swimming (however you would do that... try this syntax with something that actually makes sense to understand my point)

There are many activities, including, but not limited to, running, jumping, and swimming.

  1. Running
  2. Jumping
  3. Swimming

I recall seeing a discussion about a comma before an "and" some time back and this was the conclusion there.

Sadly, the system here doesn't allow me to post this as a comment because of lack of reputation.

Improve this answer
-2

The phrase "not limited to" is entirely unnecessary, so don't worry about the commas. The word "including" suggests the subsequent list is not exclusive of anything else, so "not limited to" is redundant. If you really wanted to expand on the "including," to make sure people do not think the list is exclusive, you could say, "including, among other things, . . ."

Improve this answer
5
  • While this is strictly correct, "but not limited to" is useful in some scenarios as a means of emphasizing the non-exclusivity of the list. "Among other things" is fine too, although I don't see how it's necessarily better than "but not limited to".
    – phenry
    Feb 19, 2014 at 23:54
  • I know I have negative reactions to my post, but it is correct. It's sloppy English to include redundant phrases, and "but not limited to" is, in fact, redundant. It does not emphasize the non-exclusivity of a list, because the word "including" itself does that. Style manuals agree with me on this point.
    – Joe
    Feb 20, 2014 at 20:50
  • @Joe, so long as "include" is not used to mean "consist of" nearby in the same piece of writing, I agree with you. If it is so used, though, "but not limited to" tells the reader which sense of "include" is intended. The better solution is to avoid the "consist of" usage within the same context, applying the style guidance you've pointed out. Thanks for it!
    – Joan Pederson
    Feb 26, 2014 at 1:57
  • 2
    @Joe That phrase in mainly used in legal writing. Manuals of style are of little relevance compared to minimizing loopholes when you're writing a contract.
    – CodesInChaos
    Aug 6, 2014 at 9:52
  • @Joe I gave a positive reaction :)
    – renakre
    Apr 5, 2016 at 2:09

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.