Grammar Checkers

[1alexie]

I am using Grammarly, it is somehow helpful to avoid error when creating an important email.

[Acorn]

I am using Grammarly, it is somehow helpful to avoid error when creating an important email.

Welcome to TalkGraphics.

Others might be interested in what Grammarly might also do: https://www.cyberscoop.com/bug-in-gr...r-ever-writes/.

Acorn

[flip]

As a sometime teacher of English may I offer my thoughts/experience? The more irregularities a language has the less useful a grammar checker is likely to be, and English is very irregular. Microsoft's grammar checker is a good example. Quite often all it can do is to point out a potential error for the user to double check elsewhere or highlights something that doesn't follow grammar rules but has to be learnt.

Homonyms and homophones are examples of the latter. Some years ago with three colleagues I participated in the design and construction of an MS Word add-in that would help people choose the correct homonym. It was quite elegant, allowed users to select three levels of frequency and difficulty eg the simplest level highlighted every 'where', 'wear' and 'we're', good for the student, but drove literate users to distraction. It was smart enough to distinguish between double homonyms eg read-read and read-red and read-reed. The add in worked by giving example sentences using each meaning so the user could select the one they thought correct - and that's the problem, if the problem doesn't follow rules then it remains a choice.

Add in the complications caused by punctuation and you can see how a grammar checker can only be a guide.

On the other nhand, as others have written, spell checking is a very useful tool, even if it only corrects bad typing not bad spelling!

Philip

[behzad]

Me no speak english no speak LOL

[flip]

Assuming your spellchecker has 'lol' in it your message proves my last point precisely!

[gwpriester]

Your absolutely correct Flip.

[ss-kalm]

Your absolutely correct Flip.

I know I'm way behind timewise on this, but that should be "You're" Gary.
Sorry, but given the subject I couldn't resist!

[Garrysmith]

As a sometime teacher of English may I offer my thoughts/experience? The more irregularities a language has the less useful a grammar checker is likely to be, and English is very irregular. Microsoft's grammar checker is a good example. Quite often all it can do is to point out a potential error for the user to double check elsewhere or highlights something that doesn't follow grammar rules but has to be learnt.

Homonyms and homophones are examples of the latter. Some years ago with three colleagues I participated in the design and construction of an MS Word add-in that would help people choose the correct homonym. It was quite elegant, allowed users to select three levels of frequency and difficulty eg the simplest level highlighted every 'where', 'wear' and 'we're', good for the student, but drove literate users to distraction. It was smart enough to distinguish between double homonyms eg read-read and read-red and read-reed. The add in worked by giving example sentences using each meaning so the user could select the one they thought correct - and that's the problem, if the problem doesn't follow rules then it remains a choice.

Add in the complications caused by punctuation and you can see how a grammar checker can only be a guide.

On the other nhand, as others have written, spell checking is a very useful tool, even if it only corrects bad typing not bad spelling!

Philip

Sorry to interrupt you, as it might also lead us to rely on grammar checker, we might not increasing or developing our written English skills.