> [Original Message]
> From: H.S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Date: 10/4/2008 8:43:57 PM
> Subject: [users] Re: OOo for technical writing: observations from
writingexperiments
>
> Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > Go t
> [Original Message]
> From: H.S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Date: 10/4/2008 8:43:57 PM
> Subject: [users] Re: OOo for technical writing: observations from
writingexperiments
>
> Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > Go t
> [Original Message]
> From: H.S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Date: 10/4/2008 8:43:57 PM
> Subject: [users] Re: OOo for technical writing: observations from
writingexperiments
>
> Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > Go t
> [Original Message]
> From: H.S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Date: 10/4/2008 8:43:57 PM
> Subject: [users] Re: OOo for technical writing: observations from
writingexperiments
>
> Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > Go t
> [Original Message]
> From: H.S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Date: 10/4/2008 8:43:57 PM
> Subject: [users] Re: OOo for technical writing: observations from
writingexperiments
>
> Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > Go t
> [Original Message]
> From: H.S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Date: 10/4/2008 8:43:57 PM
> Subject: [users] Re: OOo for technical writing: observations from
writingexperiments
>
> Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > Go t
Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
>>
>
> Go to community.languagetool.org
>
> It seems that you can help with rule development. That said, no language
> checker will likely flag every transgression every time. Even if it did
> manage to do so, you would be very unhappy with the results.
That I
NoOp wrote:
On 10/02/2008 04:41 PM, Harold Fuchs wrote:
Well I'm disappointed that neither of you picked up on my spelling of
gastly... :-
I almost shat myself! GASTLY indeed!
--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
My Book: http://www.hentzenwerke.com/ca
H.S. wrote:
James wrote:
On Wed, October 1, 2008 1:11 pm, H.S. wrote:
6. This is more general. A grammar checker is really needed. It goes a
long way in catching silly mistakes. The LanguageTool doesn't really cut
it for this purpose in its present shape and form.
What is wro
On 3 Oct 2008 at 17:16, John W Kennedy wrote:
>
> On Oct 3, 2008, at 3:55 PM, mike scott wrote:
>
> > On 3 Oct 2008 at 10:33, NoOp wrote:
> > ...
> >> And that is why it is so difficult to write and implement a grammar
> >> extension/plugin/add-on.
> >
> > It's impossible, I'd say.
> >
> > An ol
Chuck Evans wrote:
NOT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Are you guys ALL THERE? This is the 50th time/message I
have explained the situation
I sent the blank email, but it will NOT work because it is sent from the [EMAIL PROTECTED] email address, which is a legitimate business address.
I told y
:06 PM
Subject: [users] Re: OOo for technical writing: observations from writing
experiments
Harold Fuchs wrote:
>>
>>
> You could try posting this to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. I think
> a) you *need* to subscribe to this list before you can post (unlike
> users@openoffice.
:54 PM
Subject: [users] Re: OOo for technical writing: observations from writing
experiments
On 10/01/2008 12:46 PM, H.S. wrote:
> NoOp wrote:
>
>> Download for OpenOffice.org 3.0 (rc3 or later only):
>> LanguageTool 0.9.4 (for OpenOffice.org 3.0), 10 MB, requires external
>>
:54 PM
Subject: [users] Re: OOo for technical writing: observations from writing
experiments
On 10/01/2008 12:46 PM, H.S. wrote:
> NoOp wrote:
>
>> Download for OpenOffice.org 3.0 (rc3 or later only):
>> LanguageTool 0.9.4 (for OpenOffice.org 3.0), 10 MB, requires external
>>
:57 PM
Subject: [users] Re: OOo for technical writing: observations from writing
experiments
NoOp wrote:
> Download for OpenOffice.org 3.0 (rc3 or later only):
> LanguageTool 0.9.4 (for OpenOffice.org 3.0), 10 MB, requires external
> link to JavaJava 5.0 or later. NOTE: this version curre
On Oct 3, 2008, at 3:55 PM, mike scott wrote:
On 3 Oct 2008 at 10:33, NoOp wrote:
...
And that is why it is so difficult to write and implement a grammar
extension/plugin/add-on.
It's impossible, I'd say.
An old favourite is "Time flies like an arrow". Parses two ways - you
need semantics t
mike scott wrote:
On 3 Oct 2008 at 10:33, NoOp wrote:
...
And that is why it is so difficult to write and implement a grammar
extension/plugin/add-on.
It's impossible, I'd say.
Impossible . depends on how the problem is defined. In the most
general/open sense, I would agree
On 3 Oct 2008 at 10:33, NoOp wrote:
...
> And that is why it is so difficult to write and implement a grammar
> extension/plugin/add-on.
It's impossible, I'd say.
An old favourite is "Time flies like an arrow". Parses two ways - you
need semantics to reject the less likely, although in these da
> On 10/03/2008 07:50 AM, Jim Allan wrote:
>> Harold Fuchs wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You and your teacher are absolutely correct. The purpose of
>>> language is *correctly* to transfer the thoughts of one to another.
>>> That is precisely why grammar is important. The phrase "The
>>> President said Monday
On 10/03/2008 07:50 AM, Jim Allan wrote:
> Harold Fuchs wrote:
>
>>
>> You and your teacher are absolutely correct. The purpose of language is
>> *correctly* to transfer the thoughts of one to another. That is
>> precisely why grammar is important. The phrase "The President said
>> Monday ..."
Harold Fuchs wrote:
You and your teacher are absolutely correct. The purpose of language is
*correctly* to transfer the thoughts of one to another. That is
precisely why grammar is important. The phrase "The President said
Monday ..." implies that the word "Monday" is included in what the
P
NoOp wrote:
On 10/02/2008 04:41 PM, Harold Fuchs wrote:
You and your teacher are absolutely correct. The purpose of language is
*correctly* to transfer the thoughts of one to another. That is
precisely why grammar is important. The phrase "The President said
Monday ..." implies that the word
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 17:47, NoOp wrote:
> Well I'm disappointed that neither of you picked up on my spelling of
> gastly... :-)
Gastly: A black ball of ghostly matter surrounded by a pruple glow.
Within the context of the sentence, it seemed apppropriate.
> On 10/02/2008 04:41 PM, Harold
On 10/02/2008 04:41 PM, Harold Fuchs wrote:
>
> You and your teacher are absolutely correct. The purpose of language is
> *correctly* to transfer the thoughts of one to another. That is
> precisely why grammar is important. The phrase "The President said
> Monday ..." implies that the word "Mo
On 02/10/2008 21:50, norseman wrote:
NoOp wrote:
On 10/01/2008 12:24 PM, Harold Fuchs wrote:
You'll also need to specify the *exact* language you are talking
about. For example, US and British English are *not* the same when
it comes to grammar. One instance: "The President said Monday that
NoOp wrote:
On 10/01/2008 12:24 PM, Harold Fuchs wrote:
You'll also need to specify the *exact* language you are talking about.
For example, US and British English are *not* the same when it comes to
grammar. One instance: "The President said Monday that ..." is OK in
the US (at least it see
The American newspapers are far from paragons of grammatical
correctness.
It should read as a worst case, "The President said, on Monday,
"Yadda yadda".
Better would have been, "On Monday, the President said, "Yadda yadda".
Newspapers in the US of A quite often put the subject, the Presid
On 10/01/2008 12:24 PM, Harold Fuchs wrote:
>
> You'll also need to specify the *exact* language you are talking about.
> For example, US and British English are *not* the same when it comes to
> grammar. One instance: "The President said Monday that ..." is OK in
> the US (at least it seems
Sounds as if you still speak English! :) Sigh ... from an American who
appreciates language.
-Original Message-
From: Harold Fuchs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 12:25 PM
To: users@openoffice.org
Subject: Re: [users] Re: OOo for technical writing
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:39, H.S. wrote:
> 1. To begin with, It misses some common grammar mistakes which it shouldn't.
That can be solved by adding more rules to it.
Ultimately, it will need to incorporate two database:
* One for each word, and its part of speech;
* One for the rules that gover
On 10/01/2008 10:11 AM, H.S. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Some of you will recall that I was writing a few short documents with
> OOo in the recent months. The docs were reports in the field of
> engineering. It was an experiment to see how OOo fares in this respect.
> OOo is, IMHO, more popular with non-t
On 10/01/2008 12:46 PM, H.S. wrote:
> NoOp wrote:
>
>> Download for OpenOffice.org 3.0 (rc3 or later only):
>> LanguageTool 0.9.4 (for OpenOffice.org 3.0), 10 MB, requires external
>> link to JavaJava 5.0 or later. NOTE: this version currently only works
>> with OpenOffice.org 3.0rc3 or later
>>
NoOp wrote:
> Download for OpenOffice.org 3.0 (rc3 or later only):
> LanguageTool 0.9.4 (for OpenOffice.org 3.0), 10 MB, requires external
> link to JavaJava 5.0 or later. NOTE: this version currently only works
> with OpenOffice.org 3.0rc3 or later
>
Yes, that is another problem. I am waiting
Harold Fuchs wrote:
>>
>>
> You could try posting this to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. I think
> a) you *need* to subscribe to this list before you can post (unlike
> users@openoffice.org) and
> b) Your "To begin with, It misses some common grammar mistakes which it
> shouldn't" will not be considered a
On 10/01/2008 11:39 AM, H.S. wrote:
> James wrote:
>> On Wed, October 1, 2008 1:11 pm, H.S. wrote:
>>
>>> 6. This is more general. A grammar checker is really needed. It goes a
>>> long way in catching silly mistakes. The LanguageTool doesn't really cut
>> it for this purpose in its present shape
On 01/10/2008 19:39, H.S. wrote:
James wrote:
On Wed, October 1, 2008 1:11 pm, H.S. wrote:
6. This is more general. A grammar checker is really needed. It goes a
long way in catching silly mistakes. The LanguageTool doesn't really cut
it for this purpose in its present shape an
James wrote:
> On Wed, October 1, 2008 1:11 pm, H.S. wrote:
>
>> 6. This is more general. A grammar checker is really needed. It goes a
>> long way in catching silly mistakes. The LanguageTool doesn't really cut
> it for this purpose in its present shape and form.
>
> What is wrong with it?
1. T
37 matches
Mail list logo
