# A Near Blasphemous Questoin.. Grammar Checking Software



## GraemeLion (Dec 11, 2009)

I was reading some articles by some pro-writers last night, and one of them mentioned that the little dirty secret in his career is that he started out using a grammar checker to get the low hanging fruit.  He mentioned that a lot of his writer friends used the same type of software to find the easy to fix grammatical mistakes.    Eventually, he said that he moved beyond it, but not until he had learned how to correct many of the easy mistakes.  (It still found stuff, but he ignored it and it made his quality increase.)

So I talked to a few of my other writer friends who have sold a few, and a few of them looked like they got their hand caught in the cookie jar.

Now, I'm not talking about  a complete substitute for editing by hand, but just as a glance over and get the easy stuff tool.  

So, does anyone here have any recommendations on which ones are out there and how well they work?

Thanks!


----------



## M. LeRenard (Dec 11, 2009)

I don't trust either OpenOffice's or Microsoft Word's.  Probably 90% of the time they end up 'correcting' something I know is right.  Spellcheck is fine (as long as you also proofread), but grammar check is.... well, I'll explain.
The problem with grammar checkers is that they run on an algorithm, rather than any kind of human logic.  So it's a bit like using online translators to try to understand another language; there are bugs, because language doesn't have an easily modeled algorithm.  Comma rules don't always make sense to a computer, because computers don't understand context.
So I would be wary of trying to learn any amount of grammar from a machine.  I guess I could see how you could for the real simple easy stuff, but in the end anyway you're gonna' have to check with books to make sure it's right, so it seems better not to waste your time with the first step.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 11, 2009)

Oh, by no means am I going to rely on a software program.   I think what you are saying is that ultimately it will come down to us, and therefore, why not eliminate the middle man?  

Makes sense.

S&W save the day again


----------



## kitreshawn (Dec 11, 2009)

It is much better to just trust your own ear.  A lot of Grammar rules are actually much more flexible than people would have you believe.  So long as it sounds right when you read it out loud (yes, actually say it as you read it) then the grammar is probably fine.


----------



## Murphy Z (Dec 11, 2009)

Whatever you get, make sure it doesn't "do it" by itself and you can see the potential changes. It never hurts to get a second opinion, but I think being skilled in grammar is much more important. 

These programs come up with a lot of "false hits" when dealing with fiction. The programs can't handle things in quotes, colloquialisms, etc., so I "ignore" a lot of their suggestions.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 11, 2009)

kitreshawn said:


> It is much better to just trust your own ear.  A lot of Grammar rules are actually much more flexible than people would have you believe.  So long as it sounds right when you read it out loud (yes, actually say it as you read it) then the grammar is probably fine.



Eh.

I disagree somewhat on that regard.

I have friends who speak in IM speak.   A sentence that is not grammatically correct will sound fine to them and not to me.  I also can see that working backwards and hindering me.  

As for the rules being flexible, perhaps so, but they are still rules for a reason.  Knowing about them and then choosing to break them is better than not knowing about them at all.  

That's why I ask.  Not to replace my own proofing, but to get the "low hanging fruit."  It is no different than me running a static code analysis on my code.  Nothing says I have to do what it says, just that I want to see what information it gives.


----------



## ScottyDM (Dec 11, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> I don't trust either OpenOffice's or Microsoft Word's.


OpenOffice has a grammar checker? 

I used to use MS Word, and their spell checker is stronger than OO's (better suggestions), but their grammar checker is weak. Lots of errors. It's tunable so you can set it for formal writing versus informal writing, but it still makes plenty of errors. Still, when you see those green squiggles you can at least right-click on them and see what World thinks about your sentence.

There's an online tool called AutoCrit, which isn't a grammar checker but a prose analyzer. Writers have a tendency to overuse certain words or phrases and that's what AutoCrit looks for and highlights. I find it useful for a final pass edit.

As Mr. Fox (who is not French) said, it's all about context. For example if you have a character named "Race" your grammar checker will become confused. Race is normally a verb, not a proper noun. So the grammar checker will flag some sentences as lacking a subject. It's unfortunate one cannot build a control file for each particular story that defines these sorts of issues. Even so it'd still make errors, just fewer of them.

Scotty


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 12, 2009)

I don't have a problem with grammar check myself as it does catch things you miss or mistakes or if you accidently typed a word twice and missed it. However like anything like that you need to pay attention to what it catches.

While I can make simple mistakes that the grammer checker can catch, I've never had a problem going 'Ha ha, no' when it gets a false positive and gives me an absurd alternative.  I do however wish that the grammer checker could detect if a 'sentance fragment' is within quotations as dialogue though.  I think half my false positives are me going 'Well all the character said was "Yes." or "Oh shit," so it's going to be a fragment.  Deal with it infernal language machine.'.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 12, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> I don't have a problem with grammar check myself as it does catch things you miss or mistakes or if you accidently typed a word twice and missed it. However like anything like that you need to pay attention to what it catches.
> 
> While I can make simple mistakes that the grammer checker can catch, I've never had a problem going 'Ha ha, no' when it gets a false positive and gives me an absurd alternative.  I do however wish that the grammer checker could detect if a 'sentance fragment' is within quotations as dialogue though.  I think half my false positives are me going 'Well all the character said was "Yes." or "Oh shit," so it's going to be a fragment.  Deal with it infernal language machine.'.



Ashley, I guess what I'm also looking for is the name of the Grammar check you use. 

In the ones I've tried, I've never had a silly false positive.  It's been more likely just to not hit things at all.


----------



## Xipoid (Dec 12, 2009)

Grammar checking software helps me very little, though it can have its uses. If your grammatical skills aren't that wonderful, I would suggest using it so long as you brush up on grammar on the side (don't just the software as a guide) and check what it suggests needs to be corrected. Otherwise, it's more there only to catch omissive typos.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 12, 2009)

A good followup question for this thread would be "what do you recommend as a grammar guide?"  I have apparently misplaced my "Elements of Style" , and am wondering if that's still an "in book."


----------



## Atrak (Dec 12, 2009)

*shrug* I'm really good with grammar, so I don't use any grammar check software. I just proofread.

Oh, and I hate how they tell you something, then change it later. Like in elementary... "I before E....except after C. NO EXCEPTIONS!!" Then in middle school..."There are some exceptions..." ugh -.-


----------



## panzergulo (Dec 12, 2009)

As one Irish fellow once put it:

DIE GRAMMER DIE! AND SPELINGS TOO!

So yeah, I'm not concerned enough of my own grammar to use a machine to check it for me. For me, as a non-native user of English, just writing, reading and talking, that is, using the language in any way enhances my skills. Sure, I might catch quite a lot of informal language on the side... but what the heck, should I really care that much? I write to have fun and to tell stories... I don't take my own writing too seriously.

Spellcheck is cool, though. I make less spelling errors after I started using it... although, I fear that the default libraries aren't as good as they could be... English has so large vocabulary it's quite hard to even understand...

Besides, language is quite organic and abstract thing... it evolves and changes over time. What we might see as an error might be rather formal language in the future.


----------



## Thou Dog (Dec 12, 2009)

As I'm writing a story, I just write as I think is best. Whatever the hell is on my mind, it goes onto the page. That's as it should be, for the most part.

I do write in MS Word, usually, because it allows me to use Unicode characters if I need to (for example, quoting a verse from the Bible) more easily than Notepad does. Word also offers tools that Notepad doesn't, like page count and word count ("Should I label this 'short story' or 'microfic'?") and has spell-check and grammar check.

I do proofread - I typically save the story, then read it again from top to bottom, imagining it as reading it out loud, to make sure I haven't made any idiotic mistakes or told contradictory statements. But before I do that, I reach for F7, the spell-check key. (Really, it's an automated proof-reader.) I type fast, you know, and I don't always notice that I've spelled something wrong, put extra spaces where I shouldn't have, put punctuation where I shouldn't have, and so on.

I think spell-check is a useful addition to the proofreading process. It costs almost nothing, and provides the benefit of catching those sneaky little errors that autocorrect won't always catch.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 13, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> Ashley, I guess what I'm also looking for is the name of the Grammar check you use.
> 
> In the ones I've tried, I've never had a silly false positive. It's been more likely just to not hit things at all.


 
I use MS Word 2003 since I Don't like the visual stylings of later versions.

Here's an example of a 'false positive' in the grammer check.



> "Do you think *it's* okay for you two to be like that with kids around?"


 
The gammar check is actually suggesting that I replace 'it's' the contraction with 'its' the posessive.  False positives like this are easy to detect of course and I've never blindly obeyed the grammer check for these reasons.


----------



## Poetigress (Dec 13, 2009)

I can't stand Word's grammar checker and never use it. I do use spellcheck just as the first layer of proofreading to catch obvious typos (or at least the ones that don't make a real word).

Overall, though, I think it's always better to learn something for yourself than depend on any software to do it for you.

As far as grammar references, _The Elements of Style_ isn't really a grammar text as much as it's a book on general style. It's still great, but for double-checking "lie" and "lay" and other things I still have to watch, I use the old _Bedford Handbook for Writers_ that was a text in my college composition course.

_Eats, Shoots & Leaves_ is a good read, though again, it's not a grammar book per se and focuses on punctuation.

I assume there are grammar volumes in the "Dummies" and "Complete Idiot's Guide" series, which would probably work just fine for anyone needing to brush up on the basics, but for something online as well as in print, I'd recommend Grammar Girl. You can listen to the podcast, read on the website, or (as I have) subscribe to the daily tip by email. Her explanations and examples tend to be very clear and easy to understand.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 13, 2009)

Poetigress:

That's what I went with at the book store.  I purchased yet another copy of Elements of Style (I keep loaning them out at writer groups and they never return) and a copy of Grammar Girl's book.

I'll get her podcast in my aggregator and start listening to that after I complete her book.


----------



## Lazarus (Dec 13, 2009)

Grammar has always been difficult for me, but at some point early during my writing I discovered that as long as you ignore the computer and read it back to yourself, you can catch all the mistakes that you need to.

Word is dumb, but that's the nature of Word. It's not designed as a writer's software, it's for business folks. So that simply means we writers must suffer the green lines and enjoy the clicks of "Ignore".

Also I loath "How to Write..." books. They typically try to prevent mistakes that are very critical to learning the writing process and in doing so these books incur my wrath in college creative writing courses.


----------

