Re: If your left brain should decide to die ...

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:34:59 +0000, Mike Barnes
<mikebarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

In alt.usage.english, Bob Cunningham wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:44:16 +0000, Mike Barnes
<mikebarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

In alt.usage.english, Bob Cunningham wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:32:34 GMT, HVS
<usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

On 02 Jan 2008, Mike Barnes wrote

[...]

I'm saying that the newsreader should know that the answer to
the question "Should I change the spelling in quoted text?" is
"No", without having to ask the user. Note "*quoted* text".
Hence, there's really no point in spell-checking quoted text in
the first place.

Ah; sorry - I see the point now.

But it's not a good point. Part of the problem is with the
nomenclature "spelling checker". I want a typo checker, but
I don't need a spelling checker. On rare occasions I don't
know how to spell a word, but I know that I don't know, so I
look it up.

A spell-checker simply checks how you've spelled a word. It really
doesn't matter whether you know how to spell it or not.

That seems so obvious that I wonder why you bothered to say
it, but I'll try to respond: If I know how to spell it, or
if not knowing how to spell it, I look it up, there will be
no error left for the spelling checker to find, because the
word will be spelled correctly. Unless I commit a typo.

Thanks, but that doesn't add anything useful to what you said before.

I guess I might have expected that to happen when I was
trying to respond to something that didn't seem to say
anything useful.

You referred separately to a "spelling checker" and a "typo checker",
when we both know they're the same thing.

I only did that to emphasize that I use a spelling checker
to find typos, not to look for otherwise misspelled words.

Anyway, maybe you don't know but I know they're the same
thing only in the sense that they]re one thing used for two
quite different reasons.

Raising our eyes from the
detail, you were complaining about the nomenclature

I brought up nomenclature only to emphasize the difference
between two different reasons for using a spelling checker:

1. To find misspelled words resulting from my not
knowing how to spell them
2. To find misspelled words resulting from my
fingers not doing what my head wanted to do.

because it doesn't
fit the way you perceive spelling-checkers, without acknowledging that
the rest of the world is quite different.

I doubt very much that I'm the only person in the world
whose reason for using a spelling checker is not because of
not knowing how to spell.

Just because you don't want a
spelling checker doesn't mean that there's something wrong with the
name.

The name is somewhat inappropriate for the way I use it, but
I will continue to use it without complaining about it. But
I will also continue to say "spelling checker", not "spell
checker".

And, on a matter of detail, my usual name for it is a "spell-checker",
though I may occasionally write "spelling checker" when responding to
people who call it that. The name "spelling checker" seems to me to
carry an (incorrect) implication that it checks one's spelling ability,
and many people's emotional reactions to spell-checkers suggest to me
that they perceive that implication as well.

A spelling checker would check spelling.

As we both know, it also checks typing.

In saying "A spelling checker would check spelling; what
would a spell checker check", I was ridiculing the
inappropriateness of calling something that checks spelling
a spell checker. You brought it up.

Note that I didn't say it doesn't check typing, as you've
implied I did. If I had wanted to say that it checks
spelling but not typing, I would have said something like
"it checks spelling but not typing".

By the way, if a spelling checker checks spelling and a
spell checker checks spell, does a typing checker check
typing and a type checker check type?

What would a
"spell checker" do, check a spell?

It's not a case of "would". The term "spell-checker" outnumbers
"spelling checker" in Google. We both know what it does.

Yeah, I guess it's one of those crazy things about English
that has no satisfactory explanation beyond the classical
"There's no reason for it; it's just the way we do it".

Anyway, for what it's worth, in a Google Groups search on
the strings "spelling checker" and "alt.usage.english", I
get 1210 hits. When I change it to "spell checker", I get
1900. I take that to mean that there are probably a lot of
people saying "spell checker" because they haven't stopped
to think what it means, or they don't care, while a lesser
but sizeable number have thought about it and want to use
sensible wording.

If someone wanted to go to school to improve their writing,
would they look for a writing class or a "write class"? To
learn to drive a car, does one take driving lessons or
"drive lessons"? Does a test in a typing class check typing
speed or does it check type speed. Or should I have said
"type class" rather than "typing class"?

[...]

I think it's quite proper to correct typos in quoted
material if it's done right.

I'm not sure what you mean by "done right". Can you show me an example
of a spell-checker having done it right?

I see no reason to do so, because I wasn't referring to a
spelling checker correcting a typo.

OK, then you weren't addressing my point. I wonder if you misunderstood
it and that's why didn't think it was a good point.

I understood your point to be that a spelling checker has no
business checking for errors within quoted lines. I
continue to think that that is not a good point, and I think
my disagreement should have been clear to anyone who read
for understanding.

Do you find it difficult to distinguish between a spelling
checker correcting a typo and a spelling checker finding and
reporting a typo? My statement that I wasn't referring to a
spelling checker correcting a type didn't mean that I wasn't
referring to a spelling checker finding and reporting a
typo.

See again my words "in
quoted material". The spelling checker finds the typo. If
it's in quoted material, I correct it, and to do it right
means simply to put the corrected string in square brackets
to indicate that it's not by the original writer.

See again my words that started this: 'the newsreader should know that
the answer to the question "Should I change the spelling in quoted
text?" is "No", without having to ask the user'. The "I" is obviously
the newsreader, not the user.

Of course it's the newsreader, but the answer is not an
unqualified no. The answer should be more like "No, you
shouldn't change it on your own, but you should let the
writer know if there's a typo in a quoted line so that he or
she can decide whether or not to correct it".

Why perpetuate ugly errors
that the original writer would almost certainly have
corrected if he or she had noticed them?

The objective values of accuracy and simplicity are, to me, more
important than any subjective idea of ugliness.

Why must they be set against each other? Why can't we have
both lack of ugliness and presence of accuracy and
simplicity. If we aim for accuracy and simplicity, are ugly
typos more likely to occur?

It's a personal choice.

But I still wonder why you think there is a choice involved.
Why should correction of typos stand opposed to accuracy and
simplicity? In what way does style become less accurate or
less simple because a typo is corrected?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Spell Check, on Word 2002; Other Languages
    ... If you do not have the appropriate proofing tools for the language you're ... then you can set the spelling checker to "Do not check spelling or ... > spell check to continue", so I must use the Spell Check ...
    (microsoft.public.word.newusers)
  • Re: Change of heart
    ... That was a typo, not a spelling error. ... So if you proof read it, then it wasn't a typo it was a mistake. ... Spell checkers are awful. ... I'm the 170th top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations. ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: Change of heart
    ... That was a typo, not a spelling error. ... So if you proof read it, then it wasn't a typo it was a mistake. ... say "not only can he not spell"? ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: If your left brain should decide to die ...
    ... nomenclature "spelling checker". ... I don't need a spelling checker. ... know how to spell a word, but I know that I don't know, so I ... Unless I commit a typo. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Spell Catcher [was spelling checker]
    ... like with the OS X spelling checker. ... No options to modify this behaviour, ... And bloody, bloody fuckwittedly stupid bloody Apple has the ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)