![]() |
Spelling errors
I for one would appreciate a spellcheck tool.
|
My tail gets twisted
STILL when I see the "it's" vs "its" :mad: mess that has proliferated in e-mail, newsgroups, electronic bulletin boards and elsewhere, but I'm gradually adjusting to the confusion. :(
What I can't bear to countenance is the "then/than" misuse in the writings of obviously otherwise well-informed appearing in FT. "Then" is an adverb; "than" is a conjunction, and ne'er the two shall meet. I doubt a spell-checker is what's needed; I'd favor a grammar-checker if I knew of one friendly or efficient enough to consider... :mad: |
Download iespell (free)
And google now has a UBB spell checker on their toolbar. |
Originally Posted by dcutcher
STILL when I see the "it's" vs "its" :mad: mess that has proliferated in e-mail, newsgroups, electronic bulletin boards and elsewhere, but I'm gradually adjusting to the confusion. :(
What I can't bear to countenance is the "then/than" misuse in the writings of obviously otherwise well-informed appearing in FT. "Then" is an adverb; "than" is a conjunction, and ne'er the two shall meet. I doubt a spell-checker is what's needed; I'd favor a grammar-checker if I knew of one friendly or efficient enough to consider... :mad: Trouble with spell checkers is, as has also been beaten to death in lots of places, is that they're (not "there," not "their") of no help at all (not "awl") when the mistake is a correctly spelled word, just not the one the poster meant to use (not "yews" or "ewes"). I could fill several pages with the mistakes my students hand in when they let Word not only catch their spelling errors but also decide how to fix them. A "multinational corporation with facilities in multiple lactations" comes to mind. :) |
Originally Posted by Efrem
My pet peeve is "loose" for "lose." However, the grammatical and related failings of FTers (seldom those of the poster, of course) have been beated to death in a lot (not "alot") of other threads. |
And how about "here, here?" Or "complementary upgrades?" Or "talking discretely?" None of these would be caught by a grammar checker or a spelling checker.
|
Originally Posted by ozstamps
Download iespell (free)
And google now has a UBB spell checker on their toolbar. Shouldn't that be "Google now have a UBB spell checker on their toolbar" (in the British/Australian usage)? ;) |
Originally Posted by vasantn
And how about "here, here?" Or "complementary upgrades?" Or "talking discretely?" None of these would be caught by a grammar checker or a spelling checker.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:50 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.