Forum: Author Hangout

It suggests total inappropriate things. I went to the GC's configuration page and tried to configure it. Helped a little, but my choice is to use it or turn it off. Occasionally it will find mistakes so I use it.

I typically leave my spellcheck on, but routinely turn the grammar checkers off entirely, as they produce too many misleading or flat-out incorrect suggestions.

but routinely turn the grammar checkers off entirely, as they produce too many misleading or flat-out incorrect suggestions.

But they do catch errors so why not keep it on and ignore the wrong ones? It's not like the entire screen is filled with squiggly lines. There really are just a few. You fix the real ones and ignore the others.

Others may trust some wrong suggestions – because they don't know better – and make their texts worse.

Not to sound harsh, but those people need all the help they can get.

I get very few false positives (I think that's the term) with Word. And some of them repeatedly occur so they're obvious. But the ones it catches is worth it.

What irritates me the most about Word's grammar suggestions is that they are supposed to be based on context. When I type a word like "their", Word suggests "there". If I accept its suggestion of "there", Word comes back and suggests that I use "their". Suggestions like that demonstrates that Word's suggestions are practically worthless.

demonstrates that Word's suggestions are practically worthless.

I just skimmed my WIP. Chapter 1 was clean.

In Chapter 2, I wrote as dialogue: "Elena! It's been ages. Of course I remember you." Word underlined "Of course". When I right-clicked it, it said I needed a comma. I guess I could put a comma there, but I don't want to.

The next one in Chapter 2 is also dialogue: "No. What's it have to do with you?" Word wants "have" to be "has." Word is wrong. If I change "what's" to "what does" then Word knows "have" is correct so Word must think "what's" is "what is". Word does have problems with contractions.

The next one is in the narrate: "Again she struggled to control it." Word wants a comma after "again". Grammatically, Word is probably right, but writing fiction isn't only about grammar. It's what sounds right to the author's ear and I'm a comma minimalist.

It didn't flag any other grammar errors until Chapter 17 (that's 15 out of 17 clean chapters). Again it was dialogue: "So you heard this is the hot spot in Cactus Point." And again it was a missing comma that I didn't want (after "so").

So in all that writing, it flagged 4 errors. 3 were missing commas that grammatically I could have put in. The other was a contraction that confused Word. I'm sure I had others flagged while writing that I fixed at the time.

The point is, Word makes mistakes, but that's not the norm. And when it catches an error, it's worth overlooking the mistakes.

painful to decipher, especially for non native speakers.

Duly noted. I made the change.

I originally kept it that way because it's dialogue and that's how (I believe) an American would speak.

If you try to write in dialectic,

I don't consider contractions as dialect. I consider it less formal speech.

I don't consider contractions as dialect. I consider it less formal speech.

Precisely, since we authors deal in words, and they have tremendous impact, we need to focus on using the correct terms. Just as punctuation is different than grammar is different from spelling, contractions are separate from grammar are separate from pretentiousness.

Authors rarely decide on a case by case basis to contract one character's dialogue as opposed to everyone else's. Typically, they simply decide to write less formerly, and that will either apply to the entire story, or simply to the dialogue, while leaving the narative formal, since few think of God (from 3rd Omni) as speaking informally to anyone, which only paints him as a painful individual to deal with on a regular basis!).

The auctorial "omniscient" is quite different from the theological "omniscient." We're authors; we should know when words have more than one meaning.

That's assumed, but many don't think that way, and consider anything the narrator says to be completely impartial and utterly true, by dint of the term "omniscient' (we've had those arguments here far too often to list). The same is true of readers, who often conflate what happens in a particular book/character with the author (i.e. authors always write entirely about themselves).

Authors know the differences between terms and meaning, but they're also cognizant of the complications when others don't.

Oh God. If you try to write in dialectic, God bless your soul. I'm from the southern US and still have to interpret half of what I hear local people say half the time.

There's a BIG difference between giving each character their own voice, and making the sentence's meaning clear. You shouldn't contract "it has" because it is not "it is". Clarity (for the most part) trumps authenticity.

Also, if one does include dialect, it's best to not overdo it and make your entire story utterly unreadable (case in point: the classic Ulysses, which is virtually unreadable, even by most literary experts).

Instead, use the full dialect for a paragraph or two, simply to establish how the person speaks, then ease off, relying on a few/handful of key phrases, which essentially remind readers that they're still speaking as they originally did.

If done properly, that usage keeps the character true to his background, while most readers won't even notice the transition from dialect to non-dialect. But then again, many disagree with my approach, so take the advice as you will. For me, I'd rather being able to understand a story than an author 'staying true' to the character for 387 pages!

You shouldn't've use that. I'm'a've a headache

Speaking of headaches ... it should be "used that", you need a space between "I'm" and "a've", and final period after headache. 'D

If I change "what's" to "what does" then Word knows "have" is correct so Word must think "what's" is "what is". Word does have problems with contractions.

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but "what's" is not a valid contraction for "what has". There is no contraction for "what has", since it's so easy to misunderstand the usage. :(

P.S. It took me a while to learn that little grammar tidbit myself.

And again it was a missing comma that I didn't want (after "so").

Ha-ha. I've got the opposite problem, because it reflects how I speak, I tend to put commas after ever leading "So" (where the start sentences or fragment), so I need something to tell me (before it gets to my editors) which don't need a comma!

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but "what's" is not a valid contraction for "what has".

Wikipedia says differently.

And it's something that has been in common use for a very long time eg "What's that got to do with the price of tea?"

AJ

but "what's" is not a valid contraction for "what has".

I disagree and so does the dictionary.

Definition of what's

2 : what has
//what's he done


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/what's

But the ones it catches is worth it.

are worth it - spell check should have caught it! 'D

But the ones it catches is worth it.
are worth it - spell check should have caught it! 'D

I almost changed "is" to "are" when I posted that, but think "is" is correct. Just add the word "doing" to the sentence.

But the ones it catches is worth doing it.

The ones is not an instance of a mass noun phrase ;)

AJ

I need someone to explain this to me with words of short syllables.

Basically, a mass noun is where multiple objects or nouns are stuffed into a single noun. Some classic examples are:

There are thirty-two people in the crowd making thirty-people a plural entity, while the crowd is a single entity thus the crowd is noisy.

Bill and Joan are a lovely couple of two entities, while the couple is going out for dinner as a single entity.

There are many people on the college team is the multiple entities, but the single entity team is playing an old rival.

Most such are common and easy to spot, but some get a bit tricky as you can have a member of staff or many staff thus when you refer to the staff doing the work it can be singular or multiple people involved while the staff is a singular entity.

typo edit

I need someone to explain this to me with words of short syllables.

YOU NO USE 'Ones is'! 'D

Using slightly more syllables: plural nouns require plural verbs, while singular nouns require singular verbs, except when you're dealing with the odd 'singular plural noun' (ex: 'they', 'crew', 'people', etc.), in which case you treat the 'singular plural noun' as a single entity (and use words like "is").

I have to disagree on crew and people. They are singular, not plural. They refer to a group, but unless in an explicitly plural form (crews, groups) only one singular group is referenced

Karactr asked for a 'clear' definition of the term 'singular plural verb', so yes, OBVIOUSLY the words are singular, despite their referring to specific groups. That's the definition of 'singular plural nouns'!

As for my inclusion of "they", that's entirely my fault. I'd intended to include "those" (as Switch used it in my previous post). But you're correct, "they" is a plural verb and obeys the normal rules for plural verbs.

I need someone to explain this to me with words of short syllables.

It was a lame joke. Obviously 'the ones' requires a plural verb, but I used an artificial context where 'the ones' could validly precede a singular verb. However I probably should have enclosed it in quotes :(

AJ

The ones is not an instance of a mass noun

I think it is. It's an uncountable number of errors. A group of errors. That's why I gave it a singular verb.

I think it is. It's an uncountable number of errors. A group of errors. That's why I gave it a singular verb.

Following that logic, "the Heathers" is singular, as is "those morons", "the idiots" or "those two dickheads". I dare you to find a single use of "the Heathers is" in the entire "Heathers" movie!

I disagree. The number of words in your story is countable, and the number of errors can't be higher than the number of words. Therefore 'ones' must be countable and requires a plural verb.

AJ

But you can have mulltible errors in one word.

Word's spellchecker can only flag a word once, no matter how many mistakes it contains.

But I thought the discussion was about grammar checking, where the granularity of the checks is not confined to single words.

AJ

I disagree.

Maybe the problem is the poor wording of the original sentence. This was the entire post:

I get very few false positives (I think that's the term) with Word. And some of them repeatedly occur so they're obvious. But the ones it catches is worth it.

"the ones it catches" refers to the real errors.

"is worth it" refers to why it's worth using the grammar checker.

So to reword it so that it's not in "short-cut speak," it would be something like:

But for the ones it catches, it is worth using it.

"ones" being plural has nothing to do with the singular verb "is".

But, in your example, you have changed the subject from the errors to the program.

That's why I said it was poorly written. There was an implied subject. "Ones" was never the subject.

Poorly written or not, "ones" was the subject of that sentence. I may claim to not be an author (I'm really not), but I am educated in both general and technical writing.

Then you're better at grammar than me ("I" actually). But I'll try to explain my reasoning. The original poorly written sentence was:

But the ones it catches is worth it.

If I were talking about the errors, then "ones" would be the subject and the verb would be plural. For example:

But the ones it catches are really bad errors.

But I wasn't talking about the errors so it wasn't the subject of the sentence. I was talking about the grammar checker which was the subject of the sentence (or it should have been if properly written). I was trying to say that the grammar checker catches enough errors to make it worth using even if you have to ignore the false-errors.

But, in your example, you have changed the subject from the errors to the program. The program is singular and gets the singular verb. The errors are plural.

Now you see why the use of singular plural verbs is so problematic, as it's use varies entirely on which noun you pick to associate with it. It's also why it's problematic for new English users to figure out.

So to reword it so that it's not in "short-cut speak," it would be something like:

But for the ones it catches, it is worth using it.

"ones" being plural has nothing to do with the singular verb "is".

Getting pedantic, using "the ones" in your revised sentence is misplaced. Since it refers to a previously mentioned item, you'd use "But for those it catches ..." Since, in this one example, "the ones" is a substitute for "those" (an actual singular plural noun, it follows the rules for "those", rather than any rules for "ones". :(

Therefore 'ones' must be countable and requires a plural verb.

It would depend on how you view 'ones'. If you interpret 'ones' to mean a single group of errors then it is singular. If you interpret 'ones' to mean the individual errors then it is plural.

Nouns which can represent both a collective and individuals use the same form for each eg crew, sheep, Manchester United.

Ones is the plural of one.

AJ

The crew is out on the town.
The crew are becoming more like family.

(Okay, the latter is a bit forced.)

Not really, "crew" (like other collective nouns) varies depending on how it's used. If your usage refers to an entire, collective crew, then it takes the singular form. However, if it refers to only a segment of that collective (as in your second example), then you use the plural form as you're now referring to multiple members of the larger crew.

Again, collective nouns get murky quickly.

P.S. I've been writing a 3-volume space sage for some time, so I've become quite well versed in the proper usage of the term "crew" in a variety of situations, and I still trip over the term fairly regularly. :(

An English jury have decided; an American jury has decided.

American juries are uncountable? :)

AJ

American juries are uncountable?

What's countable have to do with it?

That family has been here every Monday.

The family is countable.

It was another lame attempt at humour, hence the smiley.

But, thinking about it, would you use 'less' or 'fewer' with family

eg
Last Monday there was less family present.
or
Last Monday there was fewer family present.

AJ

would you use 'less' or 'fewer' with family

Singular noun = less (less water).
Plural noun = fewer (fewer glasses of water).

So since "family" is singular, I guess "less family present," but "fewer family members present."

*shrugs

So since "family" is singular, I guess "less family present," but "fewer family members present."

Hell, I say simplify and don't bother inviting them all, only spending time with those you're actively sleeping with, as it's harder cramming those you're 'getting it on with' into cramped containers!

But, thinking about it, would you use 'less' or 'fewer' with family

eg
Last Monday there was less family present.
or
Last Monday there was fewer family present.

Even trickier, with "less" (countable elements) you'd use 'is', while with "fewer" (uncoutable), you'd use "fewer". How the heck does that relate to mass nouns being singular elements?

Last week there were fewer family, though still too many to count; yet today there's less, at only five.

take exception AJ. A crew is singular to a ship. Multiple ships will have multiple crews.

"My crew crew is the best crew of all the crewing crews in this entire crew competition!" he crowed. 'D

Ones is the plural of one.

Now that is a clear, definitive statement. As a simple plural form, it is not a 'collective' noun.

But they do catch errors so why not keep it on and ignore the wrong ones?

Why? It's all about the ratios. For the grammar checker, the vast majority are either legitimate, or ones I simply avoid due to the Style I follow. With the Grammar Checker, most often the advice is completely invalid. What's more is the annoyance factor, where it keeps highlighting the exact same invalid complaint, and there's no way to turn off the single most annoying complaint. I'm currently facing this with my Mac, which insists that it's utterly invalid to use "which" is ANY instance other than when it's separated by a preceding comma, whereas I use "which" to separate who/what I'm referring to (human, animal or inantimate object).

I can't imagine that it was.

I had to ask. It's the sort of dumb thing I've done in the past :(

AJ