On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 08:57:14 -0500 (EST), Sam Ewalt wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>> P.S. Before sending this message I dutifully ran spell check. It passed
>> with flying colors. Still I thought there was something wrong with the
>> way I had spelled something. So I decided to change my spelling of
>> "ordnance" to "ordinance". Did I do right? According to spell check,
>> either spelling is perfectly OK.
> That's the problem with spell checkers. They don't consider context
> and meaning. Neither spelling is perfectly ok in all situations.
> "Ordnance" and "Ordinance" are two different words with two distinct
> and different meanings. "Ordnance" is a plural noun meaning bombs
> and explosives. "Ordinance" is a singular noun meaning a law or
> regulation.
Yes, I know about this problem and I also know about the homonyms
"ordinance" and "ordnance". I had inadvertently used the incorrect word
when I composed my message originally. I mentioned the matter, only in
passing, so as to point out an instance when we cannot rely on
spell-checkers because they know nothing about context. "Ordnance" may
be used either as an adjective or a noun and may be either singular or
plural depending on context. Examples: "A claymore is an ordnance item".
"Claymores are ordnance items". "The shore batteries have been supplied
with sufficient ordnance."
All the best,
Sam Heywood
-- This mail sent by Arachne, www graphical browser for DOS
-- Visit the Arachne DOS Browser Home Page, http://home.arachne.cz
