Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words - Bill Bryson [70]
sometime, some time. Most often it is one word: “They will arrive sometime tomorrow.” But when some is used as an adjective equivalent to a short or a long or an indefinite, it should be two words: “The announcement was made some time ago.”
Three considerations may help you to make the distinction.
1. Some time as two words is usually preceded by a preposition (“for some time,” “at some time”) or followed by a helping word (“some time ago”).
2. Some time can always be replaced with an equivalent expression (“a short time ago,” “a long time ago,” etc.); sometime cannot.
3. When speaking, a person places greater stress on time when some time is two words.
sort. “Mr. Hawkins said that Mr. Webster was a pretty seasoned operator when it came to dealing with these sort of things” (Times). Make it “this sort of thing” or “these sorts of things.”
spate. “The recent spate of takeover offers has focused attention on the sector” (Observer). The reference here was to half a dozen takeover offers—a flurry. Spate should be used to describe a torrent. See also PLETHORA.
special, especial. The first means for a particular purpose, the second to a high degree. A special meal may be especially delicious. See also ESPECIALLY, SPECIALLY.
split compound verbs. Some writers, apparently inspired by a misguided dread of split infinitives (which see), are equally fastidious about not breaking up compound verbs, whatever the cost to idiom and clarity. (A compound verb is one made up of two elements, such as has been, will go, is doing.) Consider the following: “It is yet to be demonstrated that a national magazine effectively can cover cable listings” (Wall Street Journal); “Hitler never has been portrayed with more credibility” (Boston Globe); “It always has stood as one of the last great events in amateur sports” (Los Angeles Times).
It cannot be stressed vigorously enough that there is no harm in placing an adverb between the two elements of a compound verb. It contravenes no rule and flouts no authority. It is usually the natural place, and frequently the only place, for an adverb to go.
There are, of course, many instances in which the adverb can happily stand apart from the compound verb—“He was working feverishly”; “You must go directly to bed”; “The time is passing quickly”—but forcibly evicting it for the sake of making words conform to some arbitrary pattern does no service to any passage.
split infinitives. It is almost certainly safe to say that the number of people who would never knowingly split an infinitive is a good deal larger than the number of people who can confidently say what an infinitive is and does. That may account for the number of misconceptions that litter the issue. One is the belief that the split infinitive is a grammatical error. It is not. If it is an error at all, it is a rhetorical fault—a question of style—and not a grammatical one. Another is the curiously persistent belief that the split infinitive is widely condemned by authorities. That too is untrue. Almost no authority flatly condemns it.
The problem of the split infinitive arises because of a conflict between the needs of the infinitive and the needs of an adverb. The natural position for the two elements of a full infinitive is together: “He proceeded to climb the ladder.” With adverbs the most natural position is, very generally, just before the verb: “He slowly climbed the ladder.” The conflict comes when the two are brought together: “He proceeded to slowly climb the ladder.”
The authorities almost unanimously agree that there is no reason to put the needs of the infinitive