Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ashtoash · May 11, 2005, 09:01 PM

I was pondering grammar, and how easy it is to screw up, there, they're, your, you're and it's or its, and other similar words. Applications such as microsoft word, check the grammar but do not always get it right.

Why not a simple background/sys prefs that lets me define (comes with preset) words that always get highlighted? This would happen in any application uses textservices.

For example:

"Your coming down this weekend"

"YOUR" would be highlighted maybe the background in yellow? (hiliter!) so that anytime i used words such as these they would hilight in yellow. This way I would never get the proper version wrong BECAUSE i would notice what I have typed.

Just highlighting these words in documents i was typing would be fantastic, and cause me to never make mistakes with them again.

nforcer · May 12, 2005, 12:25 AM

Too bad you didn't have this when typing the subject for this thread.

Chuckit · May 12, 2005, 01:16 AM

I assumed it was a joke.

ashtoash · May 12, 2005, 09:45 PM

heh it was a joke. However what do you think of the app idea?

asdasd · May 12, 2005, 10:17 PM

"heh it was a joke. However what do you think of the app idea?"

Its not as trivial as you think. Grammer is difficult for a computer, and clearly for you.

the software would have to know, from context, when your is approrriate and when you're is. Not that easy, and prone to mistakes. In fact it would have to effectively know English.

-Q- · May 12, 2005, 10:27 PM

I don't think he's looking for a grammar checker so much as a specialized spell check that would always highlight certain words so he could go back and see whether or not their usage was correct. And this is all based on user-identified parameters (for example, I'd choose to have this system always highlight 'it's' or 'its' as I'm always messing that up, but I wouldn't use it for 'your' or 'you're' because that's not a grammar issue I have).

asdasd · May 12, 2005, 10:30 PM

I see. Not a bad idea, that.

Diggory Laycock · May 13, 2005, 04:08 AM

Good lord - I read the title of this thread - and thought - "I wonder if I can guess what it would be..." It had to be useful - yet quite hard to implement (when people post about 'simple-to-implement' ideas here - they usually turn out not to be so.)

I guessed Grammar Checker!

Close.

theolein · May 13, 2005, 04:37 AM

The best place for a grammar checker would be in cocoa's text services, since it already does spell checking, I think. Talking about which, does the construct "spell checking" actually exist, or is "spelling checking" correct?

Maflynn · May 13, 2005, 07:00 AM

What I say now may not be all that popular but current day spelling and auto correct has made me a lazy/bad speller. My grammar is bad enough without losing what I already know to the computer. In other words I'd prefer to keep my rather suspect grammar skills as sharp as possible.

Mike

Millennium · May 13, 2005, 09:53 AM

I've got a better idea: proofreading.

-Q- · May 13, 2005, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

I've got a better idea: proofreading.

All well and good, but doesn't that eliminate the need for a spellcheck too?

Randman · May 13, 2005, 10:12 AM

I'd be happy if people just used the check spelling option. The spelling around this place is atrocious. I can understand that from those who use English as a second or third language but when it comes from a person in an English-speaking nation such as the US, the UK or Australia ...

Lew · May 13, 2005, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Randman

I'd be happy if people just used the check spelling option. The spelling around this place is atrocious. I can understand that from those who use English as a second or third language but when it comes from a person in an English-speaking nation such as the US, the UK or Australia ...

In my experience, people for whom English isn't their first language often have better spelling than many native English speakers.

Randman · May 13, 2005, 10:32 AM

True. Just look at the title in this thread, bad grammar and a typo to boot.

Person Man · May 14, 2005, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Randman

True. Just look at the title in this thread, bad grammar and a typo to boot.

He already said it was intentional.

Though he could have made it clearer by putting "[sic]" after the title.

Randman · May 14, 2005, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

He already said it was intentional.

He didn't say the spelling mistake was intentional, just the grammar. Maybe he meant both but it's not clear from his posts.