suggestion for improving the spellchecker

Adrian Bailey · External Since: Jul 22, 2004 Posts: 5

Suggestion: MS Word development team should get together with Chris Waigl
and the guys at Eggcorn Database http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/ to find ways
that MS Word users can be helped to avoid these errors. A couple of
examples:

If I mistype the famous quote "She ran the whole gamet of emotions from A to
B", autocorrect changes "gamet" to "gamete". That's embarrassing.

The latest eggcorn I found is "indulged in flames". MS Word makes no
comment. It wouldn't be too hard for the software to flag it, would it? e.g.
"Do you mean 'engulfed in flames'?"

Yours more in hope than expectation,
Adrian

Opinicus · External Since: Nov 19, 2003 Posts: 157

"Adrian Bailey" <dadge RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message

> If I mistype the famous quote "She ran the whole gamet of
> emotions from A to
> B", autocorrect changes "gamet" to "gamete". That's
> embarrassing.

You expect a program to automatically know that it should be
"gamut"?

> The latest eggcorn I found is "indulged in flames". MS
> Word makes no
> comment. It wouldn't be too hard for the software to flag
> it, would it? e.g.
> "Do you mean 'engulfed in flames'?"

Programs are incapable of understanding *meaning*. That's
what human beings are for.

--
Bob

Kanyak's Doghouse
http://www.kanyak.com

Adrian Bailey · External Since: Jul 22, 2004 Posts: 5

"Opinicus" <gezgin.TakeThisOut@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:11j4aghk0oubr4d@news.supernews.com...
> "Adrian Bailey" <dadge.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > If I mistype the famous quote "She ran the whole gamet of
> > emotions from A to
> > B", autocorrect changes "gamet" to "gamete". That's
> > embarrassing.
>
> You expect a program to automatically know that it should be
> "gamut"?

Why not?

> > The latest eggcorn I found is "indulged in flames". MS
> > Word makes no
> > comment. It wouldn't be too hard for the software to flag
> > it, would it? e.g.
> > "Do you mean 'engulfed in flames'?"
>
> Programs are incapable of understanding *meaning*. That's
> what human beings are for.

Don't be silly.

Adrian

Doug Potter [MSFT] · External Since: Oct 21, 2004 Posts: 13

In the first case, I do not get an autocorrect of "gamet" to "gamete" in
Word 2003. It is true that "gamete" is the first suggestion and "gamut" is
the second. Given that this version of Word has no context for spelling,
this is not unreasonable. The lack of context means we don't have a prayer
of getting your second example (which is a context error.

It is very difficult to get what you're suggesting right.
--
Doug
__
The Legal Guys make me say:
Please do not send e-mail directly to this alias. This alias is for
newsgroup purposes only. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no
warranties, and confers no rights.

"Adrian Bailey" <dadge.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s7vYe.9126$MD4.6688@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "Opinicus" <gezgin.TakeThisOut@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:11j4aghk0oubr4d@news.supernews.com...
>> "Adrian Bailey" <dadge.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > If I mistype the famous quote "She ran the whole gamet of
>> > emotions from A to
>> > B", autocorrect changes "gamet" to "gamete". That's
>> > embarrassing.
>>
>> You expect a program to automatically know that it should be
>> "gamut"?
>
> Why not?
>
>> > The latest eggcorn I found is "indulged in flames". MS
>> > Word makes no
>> > comment. It wouldn't be too hard for the software to flag
>> > it, would it? e.g.
>> > "Do you mean 'engulfed in flames'?"
>>
>> Programs are incapable of understanding *meaning*. That's
>> what human beings are for.
>
> Don't be silly.
>
> Adrian
>
>

Dadge · External Since: Oct 06, 2005 Posts: 1

Doug Potter [MSFT] wrote:
> In the first case, I do not get an autocorrect of "gamet" to "gamete" in
> Word 2003. It is true that "gamete" is the first suggestion and "gamut" is
> the second. Given that this version of Word has no context for spelling,
> this is not unreasonable.

Which version of Word has context for spelling?

> The lack of context means we don't have a prayer
> of getting your second example (which is a context error.

Why don't you have a prayer? Only because the program isn't good enough
yet.

> It is very difficult to get what you're suggesting right.

TGWS, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't/couldn't try. Especially if
it'll add significant value to the product. MS and other companies made
the effort with the development of grammar/style checks, which though
far from perfect are very useful, so why not make the effort to develop
an intelligent spellcheck? Has there been a feasibility study?

Thanks for you reply.

Adrian

Doug Robbins · External Since: Apr 03, 2005 Posts: 1163

1. Which version of Word has context for spelling?

Maybe a future version

2. Why don't you have a prayer?

Because of the lack of context for spelling.

3. Which version of Word has context for spelling?

See 1.

--
Hope this helps.

Please reply to the newsgroup unless you wish to avail yourself of my
services on a paid consulting basis.

Doug Robbins - Word MVP
"Dadge" <dadge DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128637980.431396.77130@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Doug Potter [MSFT] wrote:
>> In the first case, I do not get an autocorrect of "gamet" to "gamete" in
>> Word 2003. It is true that "gamete" is the first suggestion and "gamut"
>> is
>> the second. Given that this version of Word has no context for spelling,
>> this is not unreasonable.
>
> Which version of Word has context for spelling?
>
>> The lack of context means we don't have a prayer
>> of getting your second example (which is a context error.
>
> Why don't you have a prayer? Only because the program isn't good enough
> yet.
>
>> It is very difficult to get what you're suggesting right.
>
> TGWS, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't/couldn't try. Especially if
> it'll add significant value to the product. MS and other companies made
> the effort with the development of grammar/style checks, which though
> far from perfect are very useful, so why not make the effort to develop
> an intelligent spellcheck? Has there been a feasibility study?
>
> Thanks for you reply.
>
> Adrian
>

Adrian Bailey · External Since: Jul 22, 2004 Posts: 5

"Doug Robbins" <dkr.DeleteThis@REMOVEmvps.org> wrote in message
news:ebMCcRvyFHA.2312@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> 1. Which version of Word has context for spelling?
>
> Maybe a future version
>
> 2. Why don't you have a prayer?
>
> Because of the lack of context for spelling.
>
> 3. Which version of Word has context for spelling?
>
> See 1.
>
> --
> Hope this helps.

It helps me understand that you're a moron.

Best wishes,
Adrian

Doug Robbins · External Since: Apr 03, 2005 Posts: 1163

It might not have been the answer that you wanted, but that's the situation.

--
Hope this helps.

Please reply to the newsgroup unless you wish to avail yourself of my
services on a paid consulting basis.

Doug Robbins - Word MVP
"Adrian Bailey" <dadge DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tjE1f.87208$RW.53577@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "Doug Robbins" <dkr DeleteThis @REMOVEmvps.org> wrote in message
> news:ebMCcRvyFHA.2312@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> 1. Which version of Word has context for spelling?
>>
>> Maybe a future version
>>
>> 2. Why don't you have a prayer?
>>
>> Because of the lack of context for spelling.
>>
>> 3. Which version of Word has context for spelling?
>>
>> See 1.
>>
>> --
>> Hope this helps.
>
> It helps me understand that you're a moron.
>
> Best wishes,
> Adrian
>
>