TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
On Tue, 10 Sep 1996 there was a number of mails on grammar checkers,
mainly covering the opinion below:
Q:
> Can anyone recommend a grammar checker? We are running Windows 95,
> FrameMaker, and Word.
A:
> Dare I suggest hire a human editor... IME software grammer checkers
> aren't worth the (usually large) disk space they occupy.
My response:
1. There is a built-in grammar checker in MS Word for many (but not
all) languages, incl. English. More languages are available.
2. The spell checker Grammatik, which comes with WordPerfect, is
available as a stand-alone grammar checker, too.
3. To my experience - and I use grammar checkers for Danish (my
mothers tongue) and English - it is NOT a question of either .. or.
Like spell checkers, they raise questions on potential problems
and errors, which a proofreader often overlooks, but on the other
hand, a good proofreader will certainly find errors, which the
grammar checker never finds. At least (~80+%) of a grammar
checkers alarms are false alarms, but I love it for the errors it
finds.
But grammar checkers do one thing more, which at least _some_
proofreaders don't dare/know/want to do (maybe because they are not
editors): they point at some of your bad habits, which could e.g. be
passive verb and/or long complicated sentences, which many (but not
all) academics love. They also e.g. point at potential is/are and -s
conflicts, where I was not aware that it could be doubtful if the
subject was singularis or pluralis.
By the way: My automatic spell checker in my Pegasus e-mail programme
didn't like "grammer" in the answer above and suggested "grammar"!
It could be a hint, that I may be right - at least sometimes!
Greetings from Denmark
Peter Ring
PRC (Peter Ring Consultants)
- specialists in user friendly manuals and audits on manuals.
prc -at- pip -dot- dknet -dot- dk http://www.pip.dknet.dk/~pip323/index.htm
- the "User Friendly Manuals" website with links, bibliography,
list of prof. associations, and tips for technical writers.
Searchable archives located at http://www.documentation.com/
ALL questions or problems concerning the list
should go to the listowner, Eric Ray at ejray -at- ionet -dot- net -dot-
