suggestion for improving the spellchecker

[Adrian Bailey]

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

 

[Zilbandy]

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.

Gamet is misspelled. Gamete is a valid suggestion based on YOUR
original error. The word is 'gambit'.

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'?"

There is no spelling error in 'indulged in flames'. Word cannot be
expected to know what you were thinking when you typed it. It's a
spell checker, not a 'correct my faulty thinking/typing/word choice'
program.

 

[Opinicus]

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.

 

[Adrian Bailey]

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

Why not?

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

Don't be silly.

Adrian

 

[Adrian Bailey]

Gamet is misspelled. Gamete is a valid suggestion based on YOUR
original error.

Depends on your definition of the word "valid". "Wrong" is not given as a
definition of "valid" in my dictionary.

The word is 'gambit'.
Ignoramus.


There is no spelling error in 'indulged in flames'. Word cannot be
expected to know what you were thinking when you typed it. It's a
spell checker, not a 'correct my faulty thinking/typing/word choice'
program.

Word offers a lot more than spellchecking, and you know it. Maybe they're
misguided or too trusting, but people rely on it to help them, and it lets
them down.

Adrian

 

[Zilbandy]

Gamet is misspelled. Gamete is a valid suggestion based on YOUR
original error. The word is 'gambit'.

LOL, Opinicus is right. The word is 'gamut', but at least I spelled
'gambit' right.

 

[Doug Potter [MSFT]]

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.

 

[Dadge]

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]

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

 

[Adrian Bailey]

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.

It helps me understand that you're a moron.

Best wishes,
Adrian

 

[Doug Robbins]

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