Ethan Bradford wrote: > I don't see having archaic words as a particular problem. It > only reduces quality when a user misspells into one.
The words in the dictionary are not only allowed in the text, but also used as suggestions. Suppose your English dictionary contains both OLD and OLDE (which is an older spelling of OLD). When the user by mistake happens to write OLED, the software could suggest "perhaps you mean OLDE?" which will be quite confusing to the user. I scan and OCR a lot of old books in Danish and Swedish, and have to build my own dictionaries of old spellings to support OCR. I also maintain my own personal aspell dictionary. But I do this in two pieces. My main dictionary is for current spellings, and then I have a small add-on dictionary that only contains the old forms. For OCR I use both, but with Aspell I only use the main dictionary. Every language needs a good dictionary (or two). But then a spell-checker also needs a good way to find the right suggestion. This is the real strength of Aspell, at least for English. -- Lars Aronsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Project Runeberg - free Nordic literature - http://runeberg.org/ _______________________________________________ Aspell-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/aspell-user
