On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:12:06 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>And lo on Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:06:44 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
>did spake, saying:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:45:34 +0100, "Phil Cook"
>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>
>>>> I hate M$ autocorrect
>>>
>>> Forte was written by Microsoft?
>>
>> I write everything in MS Word then cut and paste.
>
>Better spelling and grammar checker?
>
No I just use Word for everything. In fact I'm getting fed up with it.
There are so many words it does not know, especially old fashioned
ones. And the grammar check is irritating me too.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:38:30 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:12:06 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> And lo on Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:06:44 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:45:34 +0100, "Phil Cook"
>>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I hate M$ autocorrect
>>>>
>>>> Forte was written by Microsoft?
>>>
>>> I write everything in MS Word then cut and paste.
>>
>> Better spelling and grammar checker?
>>
> No I just use Word for everything.

Noooo tell me that you're not one of those people who email a photo by  
embedding it in a Word document ;-)

> In fact I'm getting fed up with it.
> There are so many words it does not know, especially old fashioned
> ones.

None that I can recall off the top of my head, but occasionally I note the  
Firefox spell-checker also has some odd gaps in its lexicon.

> And the grammar check is irritating me too.

I tend to ignore the grammar checker except for the odd form/from or "it  
it"

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:42:34 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>
>Noooo tell me that you're not one of those people who email a photo by  
>embedding it in a Word document ;-)
>

I'm not one of those people who email a photo by embedding it in a
Word document.

Will that do?
Grumble, grumble, mumble, mumble. :)

>> In fact I'm getting fed up with it.
>> There are so many words it does not know, especially old fashioned
>> ones.
>
>None that I can recall off the top of my head, but occasionally I note the  
>Firefox spell-checker also has some odd gaps in its lexicon.

Dialect seems to be taboo as does archaic words. Here are a few of the
ones I've had to add to my CUSTOM.DIC

Ballinluig, Campsie, cathodic, ejit, googled, Hepworth, havering,
Kernutt, MacDuff, McAvoy, Medea, Morlocks, nomograms, Ochone,
Pitlochry, Pov, PovRay, Pratchett, plugin, Schiphol, Smallpipes,
shadowless, spline, Yara, 

>> And the grammar check is irritating me too.
>
>I tend to ignore the grammar checker except for the odd form/from or "it  
>it"
Mine keeps switching itself on
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:op.udmdw8z2c3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>
> None that I can recall off the top of my head, but occasionally I note the
> Firefox spell-checker also has some odd gaps in its lexicon.

I was most amused one day when Firefox told me I had misspelt my friend's
name. It suggested 'underling' as a replacement.
My friend also found it most amusing (fortunately)

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:57:34 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> It would be better to say "none of these three *is* correct".

In the US, it's "is"; in the UK, it's "are".  US English, the verb 
agreement is with "none", which is singular; in UK English, the verb 
agreement is with "three", which isn't.

Similar to the reason why in the US we say "Microsoft is", and in the UK, 
they say "Microsoft are".  UK English rules state that a corporation is a 
collection of people, so it is by definition plural.  In the US, we treat 
corporate entities as singular entities.

At least that's how it's been explained to me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> I was most amused one day when Firefox told me I had misspelt my friend's
> name. It suggested 'underling' as a replacement.
> My friend also found it most amusing (fortunately)
> 
> 
:-)

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   "The car which has its windows rolled down's parked there."
>>>
>>>   The subject is 'car', and the verb is very far away from it, and
>>> contracted with a completely unrelated word. Feels even more awkward.
>>> When contracted, the verb looks like it's related to 'down', but of
>>> course it isn't. It's related to 'car'.
>>>
> 
>> This should, of course, be written 'The car, which has its windows
>> rolled down, is parked there'.
>> Now do you see why you can't contract 'is' in this case?
> 
>   My point, exactly. :)
> 
>   One could think of it as "the rest, of it, is easy" in the same way,
> but of course commas are usually not used in these types of short
> expressions, while they make sense if you think about it.
> 
Hmmm. I see your point. I think I have been speaking and writing English
for so long that I no longer have to even think about the grammar and
syntax. (Maybe it's become a spinal reflex ;-) )

John

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:10:55 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>> >   "The car which has its windows rolled down's parked there."
>> >
>> >   The subject is 'car', and the verb is very far away from it, and
>> > contracted with a completely unrelated word. Feels even more awkward.
>> > When contracted, the verb looks like it's related to 'down', but of
>> > course it isn't. It's related to 'car'.
>> >
>
>> This should, of course, be written 'The car, which has its windows
>> rolled down, is parked there'.
>> Now do you see why you can't contract 'is' in this case?
>
>   My point, exactly. :)
>
>   One could think of it as "the rest, of it, is easy" in the same way,
> but of course commas are usually not used in these types of short
> expressions, while they make sense if you think about it.

Hmm I was trying to see if it came under the heading of  
restrictive/non-restrictive clauses or inappropriate separation of terms;  
or just a verbal screw-up... I'm still thinking.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:17:31 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> should be written as: "The rest of it, is not difficult." 
>> Not in American English. Putting a comma there is incorrect, as it's 
>> separating two halves of one sentence. I understand British English is 
>> more relaxed about where commas go.
> 
> I was taught that a comma can be used to show a slight pause in a
> sentence and/or to clarify the intended meaning. 
As a comparison. The dutch rule is that when there is a slight pause in 
the sentence, you *should* put a comma. I think that may actually be the 
only rule. I also do this sometimes when writing English, because it is 
natural for me. Besides, I don't know the exact rules for commas in 
English or the American dialect.

Post a reply to this message