On the day when we have been discussing spelling and grammar

Vern's opening paragraph starts,
"Well, it looks as if this is only going to be a 2 part series; I was only able to find 2 grammar checker for OS X.."
The norm for this type of writing - journalism - is to write the word for a number, especially if it's a single-digit number as, "two". If Vern had done that, Grammarian would probably found that he also should have written "checkers" rather than "checker", since he was referring to two of them.

<I>"when I review what I've written I seldom find all the errors"</I>

As an aside, my old boss had a wonderful way of doing this which he swore by. I tried it a few times myself and it works pretty well.

When you are finished with some writing and want to review it, read it out-loud with a funny accent. I use "Peter Lorre," myself. He used to use "Indian Cabdriver." The problem I had with that was it might not catch grammar errors as well...

Yes, you sound silly. But it works pretty well and, since you have to think about how you will pronounce every word, you catch stuff that you might normally just blip over.

Vern wrote, in a nicely-done review:

Quote

If you've read my review of Grammatica you'll know that I don't use full featured word processors when I write my articles; it's kind of like using a bulldozer to mow your lawn -- lots of overkill for such a small task. Full featured word processors tend to be too heavy on the features, most of which I never use, and they get in the way of the features that I do use while writing.

There is another problem with using word processors for online articles. They make it easy to use special characters but often don't code those correctly as HTML "entities." Instead, they pass on the 8-bit characters. However, the coding for a special character is different in Windows and the Mac OS. That can result in odd characters in the text when viewed by a browser, especially if the page doesn't specify a character set.

Another well-known Apple/Mac news site is notorious for this. The most frequent problems are with "curly quotes" and apostrophes.

What a hoot! I was impressed enough with Vern's review to visit Grammarian's web site and impressed enough with what I saw there, to buy it. After installing, I tested it out on the Grammarian "READ ME." It was full of syntax and punctuation mistakes!

Quote

iJack wrote:
The norm for this type of writing - journalism - is to write the word for a number, especially if it's a single-digit number as, "two". If Vern had done that, Grammarian would probably found that he also should have written "checkers" rather than "checker", since he was referring to two of them.

Oh, irony. Try "…Grammarian would probably find…", or "…Grammarian would probably have found" (preferably the latter). The norm for criticising someone else's grammar is to check it before you send it out! (I can't be bothered over-doing it with the post - I'm off to Thursday Night Curry, and life's too short.

As for whether to use the digit or the name of a number, it isn't necessarily a journalistic norm, rather than a house or personal style.

PS: the comma in as, "two" isn't right at all, either.

My thought about grammar checkers - which are _all_ flawed, since the English language is too fluid for such software to work perfectly, is that if you need it then you're not a writer. The article itself contains enough mistakes, as others have pointed out, to show that this program is not perfect.

On the other hand, if you want to improve your writing - if you're not a "writer", but, say, someone who has to write things for your job - then this kind of program can help. However, it is too easy to take what it says at face value, and end up with erroneous habits. You're better off buying a good book on grammar and learning what it contains, or using a book to confirm what such a program corrects. But blindly accepting what this or any other grammar checker suggests will eventually make your writing worse; I see this all the time with Word's grammar checker - it often makes suggestions that are just plain wrong.

As for spell checking, you really don't need an extra program for that. The built-in spell check service is Tiger is excellent, and Word's spell checker is very good (if you use Word). And, regarding dictionaries, trash your Omni Dictionary and use the Dictionary app included with Tiger - it's much better. For synonyms, get rid of any web site/program and buy a book called The Synonym Finder - by far the best synonym dictionary ever printed in English.

Well said, Guest.

Quote

Vern Seward wrote:
When I run across a word with a meaning I am unsure of, I will copy and paste it into OmniDictionary to get its meaning or spelling. I go through a similar process when I query the thesaurus. If I find a different word to use I then have to copy and paste it back into my document. It's a tedious process that could be made better with some good integration between applications. Guess what? Grammarian Pro X does that.

Or just use Tiger’s built-in Dictionary/Thesaurus. Move your cursor over a word and hit Control-Command-D: A little dictionary pop-up window appears. The window has a menu which allows you to select between Dictionary and Thesaurus mode. No need to have the Dictionary app running (this is an OS level feature). There’s also a “More” button which will launch/open the Dictionary app.

This feature has a couple different modes. If you continue to hold down the Control and Command keys until the pop-up appears, the window goes away when you release the keys. But before you let go of the keys, you can also move the cursor to hover over other words. The pop-up moves and shows the definition of whatever word you move the cursor over (no need to click). In the other mode, you can’t switch between words (but you don’t have to keep holding the keys down either).

This feature seems to work with most (but not all) app’s. May not work with some older Carbon app’s; seems to work with all Cocoa app’s.

Oh, and in the Dictionary app’s Preferences, there’s an option to switch the “Look Up in Dictionary” pop-up menu option to display the pop-up window rather than open the Dictionary app.

It’s all quite slick. I couldn’t live without it anymore.

Edit: Corrected BBcode in citation

Quote

Guest wrote:
My thought about grammar checkers - which are _all_ flawed, since the English language is too fluid for such software to work perfectly, is that if you need it then you're not a writer.

That’s a bit harsh… or pretentious.

Quote

Guest wrote:
On the other hand, if you want to improve your writing - if you're not a "writer", but, say, someone who has to write things for your job - then this kind of program can help. However, it is too easy to take what it says at face value, and end up with erroneous habits. You're better off buying a good book on grammar and learning what it contains, or using a book to confirm what such a program corrects. But blindly accepting what this or any other grammar checker suggests will eventually make your writing worse;

Sounds like you’ve been using Word.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I see this all the time with Word's grammar checker - it often makes suggestions that are just plain wrong.

Ah ha! I thought so!

There’s some truth to what you say, but the same argument can be used against spell-checkers. A grammar checker can be a useful tool, and the use of one does not make you less of a writer. Hell, the same argument was made against the use of word processors (“real” writers still use typewriters, don’t you know?) And i should imagine there was resistance to using typewriters when they first came out (“real” writers practiced their letters, don’t you know?)

A writer is anyone who loves to write. Some have more innate talent than others. Some have to work harder to express themselves clearly. Spelling is easy for some. Grammar is easy for some. Some of us have to work hard at both. We may have to work twice as hard as someone who has a gift for spelling and/or grammar. But maybe, just maybe, our gift lies elsewhere? Maybe it is in creativity? Or perhaps in crafting a message which touches people?

Never criticize a man for the tools he chooses to use. Judge him on quality of the result he produces.

Quote

Guest wrote:
As for spell checking, you really don't need an extra program for that. The built-in spell check service is Tiger is excellent, and Word's spell checker is very good (if you use Word). And, regarding dictionaries, trash your Omni Dictionary and use the Dictionary app included with Tiger - it's much better. For synonyms, get rid of any web site/program and buy a book called The Synonym Finder - by far the best synonym dictionary ever printed in English.

I have to agree that Tiger’s dictionary/spell checker is pretty good. I don’t know anything about the The Synonym Finder. I used to use Roget’s Thesaurus, but electronic thesauri as so much faster and easier to use. I find Tiger’s Thesaurus to be adequate for my needs.

Quote

Rainy Day wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
My thought about grammar checkers - which are _all_ flawed, since the English language is too fluid for such software to work perfectly, is that if you need it then you're not a writer.

That’s a bit harsh… or pretentious.

No, it's frank and honest. You are either a writer, or someone who writes...

Quote

Guest wrote:
On the other hand, if you want to improve your writing - if you're not a "writer", but, say, someone who has to write things for your job - then this kind of program can help. However, it is too easy to take what it says at face value, and end up with erroneous habits. You're better off buying a good book on grammar and learning what it contains, or using a book to confirm what such a program corrects. But blindly accepting what this or any other grammar checker suggests will eventually make your writing worse;

Sounds like you’ve been using Word.

Among others...

Quote

Guest wrote:
I see this all the time with Word's grammar checker - it often makes suggestions that are just plain wrong.

Ah ha! I thought so!

Ooh, evil Microsoft software... I write books and articles, and my publishers require Word. This said, whenever possible, I use a text editor (Smultron or BBEdit) to write.

There’s some truth to what you say, but the same argument can be used against spell-checkers. A grammar checker can be a useful tool, and the use of one does not make you less of a writer. Hell, the same argument was made against the use of word processors (“real” writers still use typewriters, don’t you know?) And i should imagine there was resistance to using typewriters when they first came out (“real” writers practiced their letters, don’t you know?)

A writer is anyone who loves to write. Some have more innate talent than others. Some have to work harder to express themselves clearly. Spelling is easy for some. Grammar is easy for some. Some of us have to work hard at both. We may have to work twice as hard as someone who has a gift for spelling and/or grammar. But maybe, just maybe, our gift lies elsewhere? Maybe it is in creativity? Or perhaps in crafting a message which touches people?

Yes, you may have to work twice as hard, and there lies the problem with grammar checkers. I find spell checkers genereally work well; as long as you know what word you mean to use. Yesterday I read an article where the author had written "poured over" rather than "pored over"; it was spelled correctly, but it was the wrong word.

My point is that grammar checkers offer too many incorrect corrections (sorry for the bad choice of words), and they can end up giving you bad habits. They can be helpful if you know enough about grammar to spot when they are wrong, but otherwise, they are not the solution. If you want to write - and I don't mean creative writing, just good writing - you need to learn about grammar, not rely on software.

Never criticize a man for the tools he chooses to use. Judge him on quality of the result he produces.

Well... In this article, there are enough mistakes that the result is not as good as it could be, and the tool apparently didn't spot them.

Quote

Guest wrote:
As for spell checking, you really don't need an extra program for that. The built-in spell check service is Tiger is excellent, and Word's spell checker is very good (if you use Word). And, regarding dictionaries, trash your Omni Dictionary and use the Dictionary app included with Tiger - it's much better. For synonyms, get rid of any web site/program and buy a book called The Synonym Finder - by far the best synonym dictionary ever printed in English.

I have to agree that Tiger’s dictionary/spell checker is pretty good. I don’t know anything about the The Synonym Finder. I used to use Roget’s Thesaurus, but electronic thesauri as so much faster and easier to use. I find Tiger’s Thesaurus to be adequate for my needs.

FWIW, there is no "Roget's Thesaurus". It's a name that any publisher can use, since it has been in the public domain for centuries. I'll agree that most people - at least those who don't write professionally - will find Tiger's thesaurus (and dictionary) to be excellent. They are both based on very good paper books.

My comments don't all appear as quotes. Sorry. You'll just have to read through the previous comment to see which are mine.

Quote

As for whether to use the digit or the name of a number, it isn't necessarily a journalistic norm, rather than a house or personal style.

Yes, for numbers from one to ten you spell them out; that's a journalistic norm (though not used in headlines when space and readability call for digits). Some house styles spell out up to twelve; others up to nineteen, but for single digits, it's always spelled out and hyphened (ie, two-part).

This article, and the reactions to it, raise some interesting issues.

First, the article is about a grammar checker, and, at the end, Vern says: "If you write in English on a Mac, you need Grammarian Pro X." Okay. But if the article itself contains grammar errors, does that mean that Grammarian Pro X hasn't spotted them? If so, the article itself is proof of its own contrary...

Second, the question of writing, errors, grammar and public perception is far more important than many people think. If, say, Vern had said, that the program contains 500 rules, and not 150, one could criticize him for inaccuracy. But that's exactly what lax grammar suggests - if the writer makes errors in his/her writing, then perhaps this is a sign that he/she has made errors in other things. In other words, the perception of the writing affects the perception of the message.

Writers on the web are generally pretty lax about their grammar, and, in most cases, this is fine. But when someone writes for a large public, they owe the public a certain amount of exactitude - just as they owe their readers the same exactitude in technical matters - because that's part of the unwritten contract between reader and writer.

I don't want to make it sound like Vern is a bad writer; the blame is not on him. It's part of a wider trend toward writing fast and not checking, which can also lead to not checking facts and details. I, for one, don't trust the accuracy of the content if the writing is not correct. And I think I'm not the only one.

"December 18th, 2005" at heading, "Grammar & Spelling, Part II: Grammarian Pro X - THE Writer's Tool - November 8th" at the bottom.

The irony of errors in an article about grammar checking is certainly fun to point out. If we're going to pick on this article, however, let's not leave out what I see as a glaring omission in a software review: the price! I shouldn't have to click through to the software developer's site to find out how much it costs.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

Rainy Day wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
My thought about grammar checkers - which are _all_ flawed, since the English language is too fluid for such software to work perfectly, is that if you need it then you're not a writer.

That’s a bit harsh… or pretentious.

No, it's frank and honest. You are either a writer, or someone who writes...

It may be frank and honest (in your opinion), but it is also a bit harsh… and comes across as more than a little pretentious.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Yes, you may have to work twice as hard, and there lies the problem with grammar checkers. I find spell checkers genereally work well; as long as you know what word you mean to use. Yesterday I read an article where the author had written "poured over" rather than "pored over"; it was spelled correctly, but it was the wrong word.

The thing of it is that grammar checkers are no different than spell checkers. Spell checkers give many wrong answers too, as your example clearly illustrates. And they skip over “incorrectly spelled” words when the misspelling is itself a word. Now a good grammar checker can help to root out such misspellings.

I absolutely agree with you that grammar checkers are not a complete solution. Neither are spell checkers. They are simply tools. How well they work depends in large part on the qualifications of the operator. For some people, perhaps yourself, they are not particularly useful. For others, however, they can be immensely helpful. But in the end, neither a grammar checker nor a spell checker is any better than the person behind the controls. Neither one is a substitute for learning spelling and grammar. But not everyone can learn these subjects to the same degree of proficiency. For some, used correctly, these tools will be immensely helpful. Used incorrectly, they will not produce the desired result.

I have not used Grammarian Pro X, and i know it has been rewritten, but i have played with the original MacOS 7 version. It was as much an educational tool as it was a “grammar checker.” The curious user could use the results to consult Elements of Style or other references. It may even have had an electronic version of Elements of Style built-in (either that, or i had a stand-alone version).

While good grammar and good spelling are extremely important, they do not guarantee good writing. Just because someone’s proficiency in these subjects could use a little a little coaching, it does not mean they aren’t a “real” writer; that they are “merely” someone who writes. A “writer” is anyone who loves to write, and willing to work at improving their proficiency; someone who wants to improve. Not all professionals meet this definition; some are merely people who write and get paid for it.

Quote

Guest wrote:
My point is that grammar checkers offer too many incorrect corrections (sorry for the bad choice of words), and they can end up giving you bad habits. They can be helpful if you know enough about grammar to spot when they are wrong, but otherwise, they are not the solution. If you want to write - and I don't mean creative writing, just good writing - you need to learn about grammar, not rely on software.

I agree that grammar checkers are merely a tool, not a substitute for learning. But the same is true for spell checkers. A spell checker won’t tell you whether “to,” “two,” or “too” is the word you’re looking for. A dictionary will, however (if you bother to read it).

I look upon grammar checkers as an electronic proofreader. No proofreader (human nor electronic) is likely to catch all errors. Some are better than others. If you’re working on your own, you may not have a human you can ask to proofread your work. Sometimes another set of eyes, even an electronic “pair,” is better than the author’s own.

Quote

Guest wrote:
FWIW, there is no "Roget's Thesaurus". It's a name that any publisher can use, since it has been in the public domain for centuries.

FWIW, i was referring to the Crowell edition.

Quote

Guest wrote:
It's part of a wider trend toward writing fast and not checking, which can also lead to not checking facts and details.

And part of a wider trend, at least here in the US, of a failing educational system. More and more young people cannot read well, write well, nor add. I suspect the schools are too obsessed with instilling high self-esteem at any cost. They are not teaching our kids the basics. It does not bode well for the future of the US.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I, for one, don't trust the accuracy of the content if the writing is not correct. And I think I'm not the only one.

Ditto.

Quote

CrazyOne wrote:
…what I see as a glaring omission in a software review: the price! I shouldn't have to click through to the software developer's site to find out how much it costs.

IMO price doesn’t belong in a review, in most cases …unless the price is fairly fixed throughout a product’s lifespan, and seldom discounted. YMMV though.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
I, for one, don't trust the accuracy of the content if the writing is not correct. And I think I'm not the only one.

That is a load of sanctimonious bollocks. At the risk of appearing to be an apologist for Vern (no need: he's obviously and perfectly capable of sticking up for himself), I can't see anything in his original article that makes me doubt that his writing is correct. A few typos and minor - and I stress minor - grammatical mistakes, and everyone throws their keyboards out of the pram.

If you can't read an article by a good writer (and Vern is a good writer, able to articulate his thoughts well), without getting your knickers in a twist by minor slip-ups, you surely can't read anything at all.

Of course grammar is important. Of course spelling is important. Of course major mistakes must be picked up and repaired. And if the minor mistakes are noticed and fixed, that's good as well. But the minor mistakes shouldn't preclude enjoying the article.

Hmm, have you ever tried the grammar checker in Microsoft Word?

http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/check/

You're a writer if someone pays you to write. I'm a writer. A lot of people who are paid to write know very little about syntax. Saying a "real writer" would have no need for a style checker is more than pretentious and harsh, it's stupid.

Richard Taylor

Methinks we have at least two trolls having at each other here....
Hmmm, as a wise one once said:
"The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls."

Consider yourselves reminded.
-30-

Ignore the troll giving the "troll alert" above. Sir/Madam, please don't ruin a great controversial conversation by yelling "Troll" when YOU are indeed one of them.

I see this topic as a highly controversial one. Controversial topics create opinions. I read many intelligent observations and replies within these comments. I disagree with some of the comments. But, many others are eye-openers! This article is extremely educational! Bravo, Vern!