Spell checkers 2014-01-26, 08:45:55 You can't count on spell checkers and grammar checkers to catch all your mistakes, especially in long documents such the one I'm working on now (70,303 words.) However, they can be useful catching simple typos. Often what the checker thinks is the error is merely a symptom of it, such as it correctly or incorrectly believes the subject/verb agreement is wrong, but the real problem is a different typo in the sentence. This is a common occurrence for me.Checkers are of different quality. For example, the LT (Language Tool) extension for LibreOffice caught a large number of errors that Word overlooked. An example of this technically was subject/verb agreement in which Word missed that I typed "look" when I meant "looked." So it appears to be more through than Word. What's the best spelling and grammar checker available for Linux even it's a stand-alone application?
Re: Spell checkers Reply #2 – 2014-01-26, 09:49:53 When you have LibreOffice with Language Tool, you already have the best. Only one thing is better: Train yourself to avoid mistakes. Of course, this is the hardest thing too.As for me, I am happy enough to have gotten the common little Aspell working in Nano.
Re: Spell checkers Reply #3 – 2014-01-26, 10:20:10 Quote from: ersi on 2014-01-26, 09:49:53When you have LibreOffice with Language Tool, you already have the best. Only one thing is better: Train yourself to avoid mistakes. Of course, this is the hardest thing too.I think proofreading in the right frame of mind is much more productive than distracting yourself with finishing touches while composing. But perhaps that's easy to say when you don't make many mistakes in the first place.
Re: Spell checkers Reply #4 – 2014-01-26, 11:20:57 Quote from: Frenzie on 2014-01-26, 10:20:10I think proofreading in the right frame of mind is much more productive than distracting yourself with finishing touches while composing. But perhaps that's easy to say when you don't make many mistakes in the first place.It's always easier to proofread someone else than oneself. At least this is how it seems to me professionally.
Re: Spell checkers Reply #5 – 2014-01-26, 11:25:37 Quote from: ersi on 2014-01-26, 11:20:57It's always easier to proofread someone else than oneself. At least this is how it seems to me professionally.Of course it is. The problem comes in that authors know their work too well and overlook mistakes. There are ways to overcome this, such as reading your work backwards.
Re: Spell checkers Reply #6 – 2014-01-26, 12:49:09 Quote from: ersi on 2014-01-26, 11:20:57It's always easier to proofread someone else than oneself. At least this is how it seems to me professionally.Naturally. Your mind is somewhat less likely to fill in the blanks.
Re: Spell checkers Reply #7 – 2014-01-26, 13:03:20 Grammar checkers don't exist and the problem with spell checkers is that the user relies on it instead of paying attention. Naturally, errors will appear every time two distinct words, that both exists but with different meanings, are typed by mistake or/and inattention.The tool I use the most it's an English-English dictionary. English-Portuguese digital dictionaries (I mean the free ones) are useless for everyone pretending to express himself slightly better than a five years old children.Google "translator", at least regarding Portuguese-English, it's an anecdote.
Re: Spell checkers Reply #8 – 2014-01-26, 13:08:23 @Belfrager This poem from '92 still works today:QuoteCandidate for a Pullet Surprise by Mark Eckman and Jerrold H. ZarI have a spelling checker, It came with my PC. It plane lee marks four my revue Miss steaks aye can knot sea.Eye ran this poem threw it, Your sure reel glad two no. Its vary polished in it's weigh. My checker tolled me sew.A checker is a bless sing, It freeze yew lodes of thyme. It helps me right awl stiles two reed, And aides me when eye rime.Each frays come posed up on my screen Eye trussed too bee a joule. The checker pours o'er every word To cheque sum spelling rule.Bee fore a veiling checker's Hour spelling mite decline, And if we're lacks oar have a laps, We wood bee maid too wine.Butt now bee cause my spelling Is checked with such grate flare, Their are know fault's with in my cite, Of nun eye am a wear.Now spelling does knot phase me, It does knot bring a tier. My pay purrs awl due glad den With wrapped word's fare as hear.To rite with care is quite a feet Of witch won should bee proud, And wee mussed dew the best wee can, Sew flaw's are knot aloud.Sow ewe can sea why aye dew prays Such soft wear four pea seas, And why eye brake in two averse Buy righting want too pleas.
Re: Spell checkers Reply #10 – 2014-01-26, 16:41:50 1992? Amazing. This was still the Word Perfect era. The times when word processing machines were sold alongside with computers and typing machines still went on for years. I bought an electronic typing machine in 1995 and used it for six years.
Re: Spell checkers Reply #11 – 2014-01-26, 16:52:36 My electronic typing machine also stems from the mid-'90s, as did our first computer. The typing machine had the advantage of being portable.The theoretical underpinnings of e.g. spellchecking technology haven't changed that much, but thanks to the improved processing capacity of our computers, e.g. MS Word 2007 shipped with a context-sensitive spell checker. It'd probably perform a bit better on the poem than plain LibreOffice Writer.
Topic: Spell checkers (Read 3926 times)
