🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12445@umd5.umd.edu>, amunn@macbeth.umd.edu (Alan Munn)           writes...
>In article <1992Apr8.145417.2159@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcho000@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Connie Cho) writes:
>>In article <12392@umd5.umd.edu> amunn@macbeth.umd.edu (Alan Munn)
> writes:
> 
>[loads deleted about dependent/dependant and part of speech]
> 
>>>Perhaps what really is needed is
>>>a real dictionary editor, so that we can create our own dictionarys
>>>fairly easily.  Don't tell me Nisis has one... :-) 
>>>
>>>
>>>Alan Munn
>>
>>Ah, now what you are looking at is no longer the spelling checker,
>>but is the grammar checker. I don't use Word anymore, and haven't
>>seen Word 5, but I suppose I should ask whether Word 5's
>>grammar checker can catch the 'dependent' vs. 'dependant' uses.
> 
> 
>I most certainly am *not* looking for one. :)  Just on a whim I ran the
>text of a paper of mine currently in press through Grammatik Mac.
>Apart from balking at all uses of 'rather' (It only thinks it's a
>wishy-wash intensifier *rather* than something else), the program also
>proceeded to inform me that all of my relative clauses were
>ungrammatical because I had used 'which' in some rather than 'that'.
>I'm a linguist, so I actually know a little bit about relative
>clauses, so this shocked me quite a bit.  It seems to me that the
>progam only found one or two 'real' errors in the text (repeated
>'the's for example) yet found loads of other problems which (that?)
>would only cause to confuse someone not fairly well versed in English
>grammar to begin with.
> 
>Actually I found the whole exercise quite amusing, but other than the
>entertainment value :) I wouldn't ever use one, nor recommend it to
>someone else.
> 
> 
>>BTW, the speller does catch 'independant', doesn't it?
> 
>Don't know, I've never mispelt it!
> 
>Alan
> 
>>
>>CKC
> 
> 
Alan, is the misspelled 'mispelt' a pun or did you do it by accident?

					Sincerely yours,

					Thomas R. Kettler "Mac Nut"