The title is pretty self-explanatory: these are some rules and examples of tricky, confusing, frequently abused/ignored, or difficult-to-remember aspects of English grammar. Many of the example sentences are about science or medicine because I edit biomedical research manuscripts written by foreigners, to improve the language and grammar to the level of native English speakers, so I’ve used their errors to teach from.
Table of contents
1. Serial commas and the “Oxford” comma
2. Numbers: Words vs. numerals
3. Hyphens and en dashes
4. Literally vs. figuratively
5. Apostrophe-S vs. S-apostrophe
6. Tricky uses of commas in complex sentences
7. “As such”
8. Should “everyday”, “sometime”, “anymore”, “anytime”, etc. be written as one word or two?
1. Serial commas and the inclusion of the final (or “Oxford”) comma
I start with this because it is important to me. Or, maybe, it’s important to me that people agree with me. In truth, those are probably the same thing. Serial commas are the commas that come in between items of a list. Perhaps you were taught that before the “and” or “or” preceding the final item of a list, you shouldn’t put a comma because the “and” or “or” fulfills the function of this comma in addition to alerting you that the last item is coming up. I think this is a bunch of hokum. Despite the absolute requirement of the final comma by nearly every style guide you can find, including Strunk & White, the Chicago Manual of Style, the United States Government Printing Office, the American Psychological Association, the Purdue OWL, grammar.ccc.commnet.edu, Wilson Follett’s Modern American Usage, GrammarBook.com, the Harvard University Press, The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style, and the Oxford University Press, the minds of many schoolchildren seem to have been poisoned with the no-final-comma rule, much to the English-speaking world’s detriment.
The only argument against including the final comma is to save space, most famously prescribed in various (print) newspapers’ style guides, such as the New York Times and The Times (of London). Some style guides, such as The Economist and The Guardian, say to omit the Oxford comma unless clarity requires one.
The problem is that omitting the final comma 100% of the time leads to awkward, confusing, and even ambiguous sentences, whereas inserting a comma before the last item is always at least as clear (see the appositive caveat below); is, in some cases, as the examples below show, clearer or at least easier to follow; and, in some cases, is the only way to definitively express the meaning of the sentence. According to definition, if it isn’t applicable at all times and in all situations, it isn’t a rule; it’s a preference, and a misguided one at that. Instead of requiring the Oxford comma be omitted except when it is clearer to include it (which amounts to a style preference with no logical backing), I think we should institute and follow uniform grammatical rules whenever we can and leave as few grammatical issues as possible to personal preference. As Grammar Girl says, “Although the serial comma isn’t always necessary, I favor it because often it does add clarity, and I believe in having a simple, consistent style, instead of trying to decide whether you need something on a case-by-case basis. I also think using the serial comma makes even simple lists easier to read. Really, unless space is incredibly expensive, I can’t imagine why anyone would decide the best method is sometimes leave it out and sometimes add it in.”
a. The following sentences or sentence fragments do not have different or ambiguous meanings without the final serial comma, but they’re really bulky and are therefore easier to follow with it added in:
The authors are affiliated with the Medical School, the Department of Cellular and Developmental Biology and Laboratory and Industrial Products, Inc.
If you can’t admit this sentence reads very awkwardly with so many “ands” and would be improved by the insertion of a final comma, you have much worse problems than following the wrong comma style.
This is characterized by the disruption of polarized tubular epithelial cell morphology, de novo mesenchymal gene expression and actin reorganization and increased cell migration and invasion.
There are four noun phrases separated by three “ands”, and not a comma in sight. Foolish and awkward. The middle pair of noun phrases (“mesenchymal gene expression” and “actin reorganization”) are both phenomena that happen for the first time (de novo) during the process in question, and the last two noun phrases (“cell migration” and “invasion”) are both modified by “increased”. Put a comma before the second “and”, and it looks like a normal sentence that an English speaker might be proud of writing.
EMDB was established by the Protein Databank in Europe (PDBe) at the European Bioinformatics Institute, the Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics (RCSB) at Rutgers and the National Center for Macromolecular Imaging (NCMI) at Baylor College of Medicine.
significant supraventricular or ventricular arrhythmia or relevant hypertension or hypotension
The other group of BMDMs was co-treated with CHX and IC for 2 h and 11 h, 4 h and 13 h or 6 h and 15 h, respectively.
A final comma would make the separation between these long, bulky noun phrases a little easier to follow.
b. These are good examples of how the consistent use of the Oxford comma can avoid temporary confusion as to the meaning of a sentence:
In addition to endogenously synthesized cholesterol, the absorption of dietary cholesterol and the reabsorption of biliary cholesterol in the small intestine also contribute to the regulation of the plasma cholesterol level.
If the author of this sentence is not a habitual Oxford comma user, the reader doesn’t know if “endogenously synthesized cholesterol, the absorption of dietary cholesterol and the reabsorption of biliary cholesterol in the small intestine” is a list of three items, or if the comma separates an introductory phrase from an independent clause beginning with two noun phrases. It turns out it was the latter. If the reader knows the author is consistent in his use of the final serial comma, there would (should) be no confusion.
Cases and controls did not differ significantly in age, weight, history of gastric reflux or GI bleeding, type of AB therapy or use of concomitant NSAIDs, anticoagulants or corticosteroids.
That is a ridiculous sentence that is difficult to follow because of the lack of Oxford commas before both “or”s.
After screening, wash-out of RAAS blockers if needed and informed consent, patients were….
I don’t know about you, but that sentence was temporarily confusing the first time I read it, and today when I browsed my ever-growing list of Oxford comma–needing sentences to find some more good ones to add to this guide, this sentence initially confused me again. I’d wager that no one would ever clearly understand this sentence on first read without the Oxford comma but that many people would (scientists, anyway) with it. It’s true that “if needed” could be surrounded by commas, but this is not necessary. What is necessary for ease of reading is the comma after it.
c. The meanings of the following sentences are impossible to determine definitively without a properly placed final comma:
My favorite dresses are yellow, red and black and green.
It is impossible to know if the last two dresses were a red one and a black and green one or a red and black one and a green one. The Oxford comma easily solves this ambiguity.
The team focused on hiring and training, setting and meeting deadlines, reorganization and expansion and visibility in the retail market.
Which efforts were focused on the retail market? Visibility, or expansion and visibility? Everything the hypothetical team or company does isn’t necessarily directed at the retail market, so some of their efforts could be business-to-business, and some activities could simply apply to internal affairs. Without the final comma, it is not clear what the expansion and visibility efforts refer to.
Plant peroxisomes play a physiological role in the biosynthesis of the signaling molecule jasmonic acid, β-oxidation of indole-butyric acid and sulfur and polyamine metabolism.
Which process does the sulfur belong to? Is it part of the β-oxidation, or does it go with polyamine metabolism? You have to know what β-oxidation is to know that it can’t be applied to sulfur, but this comes from technical knowledge, not from anything the sentence conveyed. Without prior, specialized knowledge, it is not possible to determine the meaning of this sentence as written. I know no sentence is written in a vacuum, and you have to have some knowledge of the context and the meaning of the words to understand any sentence, but that doesn’t mean the sentences shouldn’t be punctuated properly to express their meaning correctly regardless of the audience. The above sentences don’t convey their intended meaning regardless of your specialized knowledge, and the reason for this is their lack of the final comma.
HCC subgroups were stratified according to tumor stage, vascular invasion or lymph node metastasis or tumor size.
This is yet another real-life example from a paper that I can’t fine online (if you can, send me the URL so I can cite it). Vascular invasion and lymph node metastasis are supposed to be two alternate criteria used to stratify subgroups, and tumor size was the last one. Without the serial comma, it is impossible to express this definitively.
Here are two other real-life examples whose sources I also can’t find just yet:
document content, legal aspects and procedures and registration
PMCA1, NCX1, and NCKX4 could be the targets of miR-714, miR-762 and 135a*, and miR-712*, respectively.
[This last one did have both Oxford commas, thankfully. It's a great example of how they can be absolutely necessary.]
In summary: just insert the damn Oxford comma. It’s not a waste of space, it’s usually clearer, it makes the list more symmetrical and balanced, and once in a while it will be the only way to clearly convey your meaning.
Finally, let’s talk about the appositive caveat I mentioned above. Wikipedia’s article about the serial comma gives a good example of the ambiguity that often results from forgoing the final comma…
Consider the possibly apocryphal book dedication quoted by Teresa Nielsen Hayden:
To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.
There is ambiguity about the writer’s parentage, because Ayn Rand and God can be read as in apposition to my parents, leading the reader to believe that the writer refers to Ayn Rand and God as his or her parents. A comma before and removes the ambiguity:
To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God.
…and a similar example of ambiguity that can result from including the final comma:
To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God
The serial comma after Ayn Rand creates ambiguity about the writer’s mother, because the proper-noun phrase Ayn Rand could be read as in apposition to my mother (with the commas fulfilling a parenthetical function), resulting in the interpretation “To my mother (who is Ayn Rand) and to God”.
While it is true that the latter ambiguity could be solved by the author having some sense and including or omitting parentheses and an additional “to” to improve clarity, this doesn’t change the fact that it is at least possible to introduce ambiguity with either the omission or the inclusion of the Oxford comma due to the comma’s other function as the offsetter of appositives.
Therefore, this appositive problem solves nothing in the Oxford comma debate, leaving the Oxford comma with a score of Everything Else–0–1 against omitting the comma. In this sense, one can conclude that the Oxford comma is “always at least as clear”, as I wrote above, if not in every case, then at least with every issue.
Clearly, the inclusion of the final comma in lists is more versatile—is, in fact, universally appropriate—whereas the absent-comma option quite frequently yields sentences that are harder to follow or even impossible to interpret, making it less appropriate some percentage of the time and therefore not suitable to be called a rule at all. We therefore do have a serial-comma rule that we can follow all the time, so it is foolish to institute a personal preference of including or omitting it on a case-by-case basis.
2. When to write out the word for a number and when you can use the numeral
Unfortunately, there is no consensus on this topic, and there never will be. It’s important not to find one person or web page who tells you what you want to hear and go with that. For instance, some people who act like they know what they’re doing don’t even know the definitions of the words “number” and “numeral”. (Those morans got it exactly backwards. I’d be embarrassed if I were them.) A number is an abstract concept for a quantity, and a numeral is a written symbol for expressing that quantity. Roman numerals and Arabic numerals are two examples of different ways of expressing the same mathematical concepts (numbers). A word, made up of letters, is another way to express a number in writing.
In the most formal writing, it is basically never appropriate to use a numeral. If you’re doing that kind of writing, you’re probably not reading this because you’re already an accomplished writer, grammarian, and/or editor. Other style guides allow numerals for years and really long numbers (in the millions or billions, for example).
In scientific or technical writing, different publishers have different preferences, but those might not always be available or exhaustive. In the absence of an available style guide or clear rule for your specific needs, here are the rules that I think are the most agreed-upon and best for when numerals are allowed in formal scientific writing, so that you don’t have to spend too much time worrying about whether you’re being formal or consistent enough:
- Use numerals for all numbers with more than one digit. This includes decimals and fractions.
- Any time you use a numeral for a certain noun (for instance, when that noun has a quantity of 10 or more), you can use a numeral for the same noun in the same sentence, even if the other number is less than 10. Example sentence:
The two largest groups contained 12 and 8 people, respectively.
Other things being equal, you would normally write “eight” instead of “8”, but “people” is modified by both 12 and 8 in this sentence, so to be uniform, it’s okay to break this rule and write the smaller number the same way you write the larger number. On the other hand, “groups” is only modified by one number (two), so it must be written as a word. On the third hand, it is acceptable to maintain document-wide uniformity and write “eight” the same way you do every other single-digit number in every other sentence.
A similar type of situation is the use of an integer and a decimal together:
a 1.7–2-fold increase
Normally you might write 2-fold as “two-fold” (though there are style guides that treat “fold” as a unit like % or other measured quantity), but in combination with—even in the same sentence as—that decimal, you must use a numeral.
- An abbreviated unit (kg, mM, h, %, etc.) requires a numeral; inversely, spelled-out numbers require the unit to be written out in full. This is only relevant at the beginning of sentences. That is, if you have to spell out the word at the beginning of the sentence, you cannot use an abbreviation for the unit. This might feel a little awkward when you have to write “Ten microliters of PCR product was added”, but it looks a hell of a lot better than beginning a sentence with “10 μL”. This often results in having two equally acceptable alternatives:
Ten microliters of PCR product was added…
or:
PCR product (10 μL) was added… -
When the number modifies any measured or counted unit of time, it is acceptable to use a numeral. Often units of time are abbreviated, but you or the publisher might not want to abbreviate them, such as “hour”, “day”, “week”, or “month”. This might only be relevant to scientific publications, where many numbers and measurements are used, whereas other writings don’t contain a lot of numbers and would look fine with occasional numbers written as words. In scientific papers, this rule helps avoid the awkwardness of using abbreviations in such examples as “at the 1-mo time point” or “the 3-d samples”. It should be acceptable to use a numeral with a non-abbreviated unit, like “1-month” and “3-day”, which is clearer and less weird-looking, is often more uniform with all the other single-digit numerals used in the methods and results sections, and is consistent because units will always be preceded by numerals.
Other counted nouns in scientific papers, such as group or mouse, are not units, so their numbers follow the other rules of formal writing.
- In the name or label of a group, time, disease, or several other things (note that these come after the noun):
type 2 diabetes
day 2 [the publisher might require number-words before units of time, like "two days", but never in the label of a time point]
group 1
row 2
Section 3
3. Hyphens and en dashes
The functions of the hyphen, the en dash, and the em dash can be summarized easily: the hyphen compounds, the en dash connects, the em dash separates. Therefore, if you don’t wish to compound two things into one, then don’t use a hyphen.
a. The function of the hyphen
The hyphen is a compounder or combiner. It is very versatile and is woefully underused in the modern English-speaking world.
- When a two-word phrase consisting of an adjective and a noun is used as a single adjective, it should usually be hyphenated:
one-way street
real-world example
5-mL solution - Also, two nouns that are used as a single descriptor (adjective) can often be hyphenated, though I am unable to discern a rule defining exactly when a hyphen is appropriate between the two nouns and when it isn’t. (My rule is: it’s appropriate when it’s clearer.) Often we might think of the first noun as fulfilling the function of an adjective, the second noun as a noun, and the combination of the two as a single, compound adjective.
Air traffic was so dense that afternoon that air-traffic control could hardly cope. (Hat tip: BBC.)
Density-gradient centrifugation
Insertion-mutant populations
She has been with her computer-programmer boyfriend for two years.
I have a lot of science-nerd friends.
The DNA-methylation differences were more subtle than the protein-phosphorylation ones.This doesn’t seem to be always appropriate or necessary, though:
Skeletal muscle cell differentiation
Cell cycle regulation (I also often see cell-cycle regulation)
Data analysis program (but data-analyzing program)
Brain stem reflexes
Flow cytometry analysis (though I strongly advocate flow-cytometric analysis, which is noun–adjective, so there’s that) - Infinitive phrases and prepositional phrases almost always must be hyphenated when they precede their noun but must remain un-hyphenated when they follow their noun:
The teacher gave us some easy-to-remember rules.
The rules were easy to remember.
The Atlanta-to-Houston flight
The flight from Atlanta to Houston
He had a lot of built-up anger.
His anger built up for a long time.
The on-call physician is Dr. Smith.
Dr. Smith is on call.Here’s an example that’s always bothered me. Why do radio stations claim they are “new”? Or that they are the “new #1 hit music station”? I know stations that have literally been around for four or five years that still use that same damn slogan. But the grammarian in me thinks, Well, if you hyphenate the words properly, the statement could still be technically correct…
A new-#1-hit music station is a music station that plays new #1 hits. (Presumably they play other things, too, seeing as how there is only one #1 hit at a given time.)
A new, number-1, hit-music station is a radio station that plays hit music, is new, and is the number-1 station in town.If you can point to a single radio marketing employee in the entire United States who knows the difference between the two or could punctuate either one of those sentences properly, I have a newborn unicorn and a shiny pot of gold to give you.
- Adverbial modifiers (adverb–adjective or adverb–adverb combinations) should not be hyphenated, except in cases where the adverb can also be an adjective in other situations (e.g., “well”, “better”, “best”, “fast”, “high”, “hard”, “little”, many others) and the compound modifier that precedes its noun:
A highly talented violinist
A finely tuned machine
The most often recommended remedy [adverb–adverb–adjective!]
The least easily recognizable member of the group
A fast-acting drug
The best-recommended remedy
Over-broad but overly broad (a preposition made into an adverb!)
A poorly defined mechanism
A well-defined mechanism ["well-defined" comes before the noun, so it should be hyphenated]
A mechanism that is well defined ["well defined" comes after the noun, so it cannot be hyphenated]
A relatively unknown protein
A better-known protein
A protein that is better known
The best-known member of the group
He is best known for his accomplishments in…
The well-known chef opened a new restaurant.
The new restaurant’s chef is well known. - When numbers like the following are written out in words, they must be hyphenated (the word “and” is also verboten!):
Twenty-three
One hundred sixty-four
Three thousand four hundred ninety-nine - Any usage of the prefixes “self” or “ex” must be hyphenated:
self-confidence
self-appointed
self-diagnose
ex-wife - When a prefix ends with the same letter that the base word begins with, or the non-hyphenated compound word is likely to be read wrong for another reason, it’s usually best to hyphenate the compound word:
anti-inflammatory instead of antiinflammatory (though proinflammatory is okay)
pro-oncogenic instead of prooncogenic (though antioncogenic is okay)
de-ice instead of deice, which is never okay
re-sign instead of resign; these are two different words with different meanings
post-translational looks a lot better than posttranslational, though I guess both are fine
reelect and re-elect both seem acceptable - Dangling hyphens are good to use when multiple prefixes precede the same base noun but you don’t want to repeat the base noun every time, or when you want to attach a single prefix to multiple base nouns but don’t want to repeat the prefix every time.
macro- and microeconomics
pre- and post-WWII
Ron Paul’s anti-Obama, -McCain, -Clinton, and -Bush campaignI particularly liked this example from the EDline editors mailing list, cited by Wikipedia:
…a large number of adjectives…were used to describe [ships protected by iron or steel armor]: iron- or steel- or armor-plated, -cased, -clothed, -sided, and many others….
The hyphen between the adjective and the noun can be unnecessary or even incorrect when the adjective–noun pair is a single, two-word entity, almost like a proper noun or a name:
Nervous system development
Renal tubule formation
That Wikipedia article on the hyphen is quite good and long, so I recommend reading it for a fuller description and explanation of its uses.
b. The function of the en dash
You thought the hyphen was underused; most people don’t even know the en dash exists! Such a shame.
The en dash (–, HTML character code – or –) is a connector and a comparer. It’s the neglected middle child between the hyphen and the em dash. (The em dash is what we normally think of when we think of a dash, —.) So named because it was roughly the width of the capital letter N in many fonts, the en dash is used to signify a range, to connect things, and to replace the hyphen in compound adjectives of more than two words (see part c.) Wikipedia has a really good article on dashes.
- In the more traditional, first two uses, the en dash replaces the word “to” or “and”:
allowed to grow for 2–3 days, not 2-3 days, because you mean “2 to 3”
dose–response curve, not dose-response curve, because it is a “dose-and-response” curve; there is no such thing as a “dose-response”
cell–cell communication, not cell-cell, because you mean cell-to-cell; there is no such thing as a “cell-cell”. Remember that the hyphen would combine the two words into a single cell-cell, whereas the en dash connects two different cells.
Atlanta–Houston flight, not Atlanta-Houston flight, because it is an Atlanta-to-Houston flight; there is no such place as “Atlanta-Houston”. The hyphen would combine the two places into one region, like Alsace-Lorraine or Schleswig-Holstein; the en dash connects these two separate places.
blood–brain barrier; there is no such thing as a “blood-brain”
President Jimmy Carter (1977–1981)
the Supreme Court’s 5–4 decision
a score of 31–27 - Lastly, the minus sign looks identical to the en dash on most computers and word processors, so it is best to write negative numbers with an en dash instead of a hyphen:
–80°C
a change of –20%It is important to note that if you’re giving a range of negative numbers, or any other times it might be confusing to the reader, you can’t use the en dash to specify a range:
–15 to –20 (negative fifteen to negative twenty)
–15 to 20 (negative fifteen to twenty)
c. Compound modifiers that require an en dash to perform the function of a hyphen
- The following types of constructions require an en dash and cannot use a hyphen because one side or another of the compound adjective has two words or already contains a hyphen:
embryonic stem cell–focused research [With a hyphen, it would be conveying the idea of the noun phrase "cell-focused research" being modified by "embryonic stem," which doesn't really make sense.]
germ cell–derived
high pressure–sensitive component
mouse organelle–specific component [It is specific to mouse organelles, not a mouse component that is specific to organelles]
non–government-based [Meaning not government-based]
maltose-binding protein–tagged antigen [Meaning an antigen tagged with maltose-binding protein, not an antigen that is maltose-binding and is protein-tagged]
small RNA–dependent scaffold [the scaffold isn't small and dependent on RNAs; it is dependent on small RNAs]
inter–stress fiber space [I don't know what "inter-stress" would mean, but "inter" is a prefix to a two-word phrase, so it must be followed by an en dash, not a hyphen] - Contrast the first example with a re-writing that uses “ESC” as an abbreviation for “embryonic stem cell”. It has the same meaning but requires a hyphen, not an en dash, because the hyphen is preceded by only one word:
ESC-focused, not ESC–focused
I’m not 100% positive that this is right, but I think it’s best to use a hyphen instead of an en dash in these types of phrases where the full term and its parenthetical abbreviation (or a clarifying word in parentheses) precede a hyphen, if and only if they are both one word:
MitoTracker (MT)-stained cells
tyrosine (Tyr)-phosphorylated proteins
vehicle (DMSO)-treated ratsI don’t think it would be wrong to use an en dash instead in those examples.
- If your phrasing calls for a dangling hyphen or en dash, simply use them the way you normally would if they weren’t dangling:
the high pressure– and heat-sensitive gauge, not the high-pressure- and heat-sensitive gauge
the angiotensinogen II– and VEGF-induced effects - There’s also the classic example of Bart Simpson asking the following to Mrs. Krabappel:
How would I go about creating a half-man–half-monkey–type creature? Or: How would I go about creating a half-man, half-monkey–type creature?
Either way uses an en dash before “type.”
The take-home message, which bears repeating: The en connects, the em separates, and the hyphen compounds.
4. Don’t use “literally” when you literally mean “figuratively”
This is one of my biggest pet peeves in the world because it is so ridiculous. Why do people say “literally” when they mean its exact opposite, “figuratively”? Here are some examples I’ve encountered that I can remember:
“My boyfriend literally hit the ceiling.”
“We have literally created a monster.”
“This is literally a tortoise–hare situation.” (Michael Wilbon, Pardon the Interruption, December 14, 2009, on the late-surging Chargers posing a potential threat to the 13-0 Colts, should they meet in the playoffs.)
People, please learn what the word “literally” means, and don’t use it foolishly.
5. When to add apostrophe-S (’s) after a noun, and when to add only an apostrophe
Despite what complex and specific rules your grade-school textbook or teacher might have tried to make you memorize, only two simple rules are needed to determine whether to add ’s or just the ’ after a noun that ends in s:
If the word is one syllable, always add ’s.
If the word is multiple syllables, then spell it how you pronounce it.
Don’t let anybody tell you those rules are insufficient or too lenient. If a general prescriptivist like me tells you to ignore the other pseudo-rules that people may throw at you, you know it’s OK to. Many times, we would add ’s to a two- or three-syllable word because the word ends in a hard S (the voiceless S or voiceless alveolar fricative or [s]) or in spite of the fact that it ends in a soft S (or [z] or voiced alveolar sibilant fricative) because it is short enough to sound better with that extra ’s syllable added to the end of it.
Some examples:
Charles’s (Charles always counts as one syllable, so Charles’ is always wrong)
Dickens’s (I’d prefer to pronounce it this way, possibly because I err on the side of adding the ’s to proper nouns whenever it seems remotely reasonable)
Mr. Rogers’s Neighborhood and Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood are equally correct because you could pronounce it either way
Theodosius’s
Archimedes’
Socrates’s sounds better than Socrates’ in every phrase I utter to myself, but I can’t really explain why
the class’s desks
the students’ desks
Illinois’s constitution (you would add the s sound, which is absent in the state’s name, so Illinois’ seems pretty foolish and counterintuitive to me)
Mr. Jones’s car
the Joneses’ home
men’s clothing (mens is not a word, so mens’ is always wrong)
Venus’ fly trap and Venus’s fly trap seem equally correct in writing, though we only pronounce it the first way. But in other Venus possessives that aren’t common names of plants, we would add the extra ’s syllable in speech. You wouldn’t pronounce “Venus’ orbit” identically to “Venus orbit”, would you? No. So add the ’s.
for goodness’ sake probably never needs an ’s; we certainly wouldn’t pronounce it that way
for appearance’ sake and for conscience’ sake are never anything remotely approaching acceptable, despite what the idiots at the New York Public Library’s Guide to Style and Usage would have us believe. If it doesn’t end in s, then of course you have to add ’s to make it possessive!
6. Tricky comma uses in complex sentences
When “and” precedes a dependent or independent clause that begins with an introductory phrase that itself is normally offset by commas, people have a hard time knowing where and how many commas to put. The best thing to remember is that when an independent clause is preceded by one of the seven conjunctions, a comma should precede the conjunction, but a comma shouldn’t precede a dependent clause (unless there are other reasons to put a comma there). This is much easier to explain with examples:
Correct: In general, the mice produced 10 to 12 pups, and to avoid the influence of litter size on this phenotype, we only used dams whose litter size was 10 pups.
Incorrect: In general, the mice produced 10 to 12 pups, and, to avoid the influence of litter size on this phenotype, we only used dams whose litter size was 10 pups.Correct: Despite high retail sales, unemployment numbers were still up last quarter, and therefore, many economists have said the recession is not over.
Incorrect: Despite high retail sales, unemployment numbers were still up last quarter, and, therefore, many economists have said the recession is not over.Correct: Many survey respondents were lukewarm on his foreign policy positions, indicating that among likely voters, Senator Smith had slim chances for re-election.
Incorrect: Many survey respondents were lukewarm on his foreign policy positions, indicating that, among likely voters, Senator Smith had slim chances for re-election.
[No, neither "indicating" nor "among" begins an independent clause, but I didn't know how else to classify this type of example.]Correct: He thinks that if he asks for directions, his membership in the brotherhood of men will be revoked.
Incorrect: He thinks that, if he asks for directions, his membership in the brotherhood of men will be revoked.
[Hat tip to the Chicago Manual of Style's question-and-answer section, which says that both of them are right, but I can't see what that first comma's purpose is.]
7. “As such”
“As such” is not a generic synonym of “therefore” or “consequently” or anything like that. It is bound by one specific grammatical rule: the “such” has to refer to an earlier noun or noun phrase. In other words, before writing “as such”, ask yourself: “As what?” The “such” is the answer to “what”. If the previous thought specifies a noun that “such” would refer to, then it is okay to write “as such”; if not, then use “therefore” or something similar.
Correct: I am a scientific editor for non-native English speakers, and as such [as what? as an editor for non-native English-speaking scientists], I’ve collected mainly biology-related examples of grammatical errors.
Incorrect: I am a scientific editor for non-native English speakers, and as such, my examples of grammatical mistakes are mostly biology-related. [This doesn't make sense because "my examples" does not refer to any antecedent noun.]Correct: She is the only player on the team who is any good at pitching. As such [as what? As the only one who's good at pitching], she doesn’t get to play shortstop or third base, her favorite positions, as much as she wants.
Incorrect: No one else on the team is good at pitching. As such [as what? as the concept of being good at pitching? as the concept of being bad at pitching? as no one else? there is no antecedent that "such" could refer to], she doesn’t get to play shortstop or third base, her favorite positions, as much as she wants.
Incorrect: She is the only player on the team who is any good at pitching. As such, a girl with a much weaker arm usually has to play third base. [This doesn't make sense because "As such" does not connect "a girl with a much weaker arm" to any preceding noun.]
In summary, “as such” connects (equates) one noun to a previous one. If the two nouns aren’t identical and the statement you made about the first noun doesn’t lead directly to the second statement being true, then “as such” is wrong.
8. Should I write everyday, sometime, anymore, and anytime as one word or two?
Let’s take these in alphabetical order.
- any more vs. anymore
The single-word version anymore has a temporal meaning, expressing “still”, “now”, or “nowadays”. It is an adverb that is synonymous with “any longer” and usually appears at the end of a clause:I don’t like tea anymore.
I hope we don’t have to attend those boring meetings anymore.
I wonder if it will be cold anymore this spring.In contrast, the two-word adverb any more has a quantitative meaning, referring to the amount or number of stuff or things under discussion:
I don’t want any more tea.
I hope we don’t have any more boring meetings.
I wonder if we will have any more cold days this spring.Take-home message: if you could replace it with “any longer”, the one-word version is correct; if you are referring to a quantity or number of a specific noun, the two-word version is required.
- any one vs. anyone
This one is easier because anyone is synonymous with “anybody” and “any person”, whereas any one always refers to “any single one of [some nouns]”:I don’t know anyone here.
I don’t know any one of those people.
Does anyone still watch that show?
Is any one of those shows worth watching? - any time vs. anytime
Lynn Gaertner-Johnston wrote a guide to any time vs. anytime that should be sufficient for everyone and every context.The first distinction to remember is that any time is an adverb phrase used to mean any amount of time:
Do you have any time to meet tomorrow?
Sure, that won’t take any time at all.
I haven’t spent any time practicing lately.In contrast, anytime is an adverb used to mean whenever or at any time:
I can meet with you anytime tomorrow.
That should be easy to do anytime.
Anytime I can practice, I do.The second distinction between these two adverbs is that following the preposition “at”, only the two-word any time can be used. Because of this rule, the two-word any time can mean any length of time (distinction 1) or, only after “at”, any point in time (whenever). The take-home message: if preceded by “at”, only any time is acceptable; otherwise, use any time to mean any length or amount of time and anytime to mean any point in time or whenever.
- every day vs. everyday
This one should be easier than people seem to make it because the two-word every day is an adverb, whereas the one-word everyday is only an adjective:It’s part of my everyday routine.
It’s part of my routine every day.
That’s not an everyday occurrence.
That doesn’t occur every day. - some time(s) vs. sometime(s)
This distinction is very similar to any time vs. anytime. First, let’s consider the versions without the final s.Some time is an adjective–noun pair that means some amount or length of time:
This is going to take some time.
Let’s take some time tomorrow and talk about it.
We’ll have to make up some time by resting less.The one-word adverb sometime means at some point in time or at a yet unspecified time:
This has to get done sometime.
Let’s talk about it sometime tomorrow.
We have to stop and rest sometime.There is also another way to use sometime as an adjective, before nouns. In this sense sometime means:
1. having been formerly, former: The diplomat was a sometime professor of history at Oxford.
2. being so only at times or to some extent: Traveling so much, he could never be more than a sometime husband.
3. that cannot be depended upon regarding affections or loyalties: He was well rid of his sometime girlfriend.
[examples shamelessly stolen from Dictionary.com.Now let's consider the versions with the final s. The two-word adjective–noun phrase some times is simply the plural version of some time:
Most times work for me, but some times are impossible.
Most runners performed as expected, but some times seem dubious. [This one's a little contrived, but you get the point.]The one word adverb sometimes means occasionally, at times:
I only like drinking sometimes.
I sometimes bike to work.
Sometimes grammar can be fun!In summary, the two-word phrase some time(s) is a normal, run-of-the-mill adjective–noun pair, whereas the one-word adverbs sometime and sometimes tell when or how often things happen, with sometime also being available as an adjective for fancy-pants writers who probably don’t need this grammar guide.
The take-home message: Because everyday is only an adjective, it can only appear before a noun, modifying that noun. If you want to put one or the other at the end of a clause or sentence, saying when or how often something happens, the two-word adverb every day is needed.
