Daniel,
the confusion probability rule might work well with these pairs:
begin - being
expect - except
passed - past
peace - piece
principal - principle
quiet - quite
quit - quite
raise - rise
seen - scene
weather - whether
The following pair might or might not work, since the words are
semantic
On 2015-05-29 18:13, Jan Schreiber wrote:
> Another word pair came to my mind for which this method might work:
> prove - proof
It works quite well (precision=0.996, recall=0.856), so I've added it.
As 'proof' can also be a verb, e.g. short for proofread, there are some
cases that are ambiguous
Another word pair came to my mind for which this method might work:
prove - proof
Best,
Jan
Am 27.05.2015 20:12, schrieb Daniel Naber:
> On 2015-05-27 19:45, Jan Schreiber wrote:
>
>> this is really awesome! Is it possible to extend this to abbreviations
>> with an apostrophe?
>
> Not yet, but
On 2015-05-27 09:48, Daniel Naber wrote:
> It seems to work quite well, for example for there/their the rule has a
> precision of 0.998 and a recall of recall 0.970. This means you can, on
> average, use 'there' or 'their' almost 1000 times before you will run
> into the first false alarm (precisi
On 2015-05-27 19:45, Jan Schreiber wrote:
> this is really awesome! Is it possible to extend this to abbreviations
> with an apostrophe?
Not yet, but it's on my TODO list.
> Other important cases:
> then - than
> effect - affect
I'll try to add these.
Regards
Daniel
---
Hi,
this is really awesome! Is it possible to extend this to abbreviations
with an apostrophe?
Some of the most prominent misspellings in English involve an apostrophe:
you're - your
they're - there - their
it's - its
Other important cases:
then - than
effect - affect
See http://theoatmeal.com/
Hi,
a rule that uses ngram occurrence data to detect errors in English text
has now been activated on languagetool.org. Here are some errors it can
detect which LT couldn't detect before:
I can't remember how to go their.
I didn't now where it came from.
Alabama has for of the world's
