Well said, Tom!  Punctuation is often a matter of formality in the writing.  



-----Original Message-----
From: Talk [mailto:[email protected]] 
On Behalf Of Tom Kingston via Talk
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 9:41 AM
To: Diana Kube; Window-Eyes Discussion List
Subject: Re: Professional level robust Punctuation/grammar/proofing tools that 
work with Window-Eyes.

Hi Diana,

I don't at all mean to sound arrogant. But in my opinion the best thing to do 
for yourself is learn how to do it right yourself. No program is going to be 
perfect. And editors don't mind making minor corrections. 
That's their job. Also, part of it is simply their personal preference or that 
of the publication.

When it comes to punctuation there isn't a set of rules carved in stone for the 
English language. And that is what a program works best with.

Editors and writers will always disagree over things like the use of semicolons 
instead of separate sentences, too many or too few commas or clauses, the 
latter of which may or may not also involve semicolons. 
Then there's the timeless debate over the serial comma, which is also referred 
to as the Oxford or Harvard comma. I have no idea what a program would do with 
that. Do you know the difference between a parenthetical statement enclosed in 
parentheses and one enclosed in em dashes? No program can.

One consensus among editors is a raw hatred for the exclamation mark. 
Why this is is a mystery. But it's been preached from the bully pulpit for as 
long as I can remember. So I suppose a program could simply blacklist the 
exclamation mark. Then again, under just the right circumstances it is just the 
right mark for the occasion. Still, whether the editor agrees or not is a roll 
of the dice every time.

So it's a combination of developing your own style and knowing that of the 
publication you're submitting to, because, as I said, they're not all hard and 
fast rules. I say the publication rather than the editor because often it's the 
publication's rules the editor wants you to adhere to, which aren't necessarily 
one and the same. Professional publications typically desire consistency 
throughout. So it may be more the publications rules you and the editor are 
working toward rather than either of your own personal preferences.

Academia is pretty well set but there's still wiggle room even there. 
"professional" is an open field on what is right or wrong depending on the 
particular genre or sub-genre. And again, there's the matter of the 
editor's/publication's preference. No reasonable editor is going to have a 
problem with preferential edits. They know they're forcing their style on your 
writing. These are the cases wherein you simply have to learn and write to that 
predefined ideal.

When you say "Word misses a high percentage of unusual errors including 
punctuation with narrated and quoted text in the same sentence," I read that as 
pretty much everything. If you meant something more specific please feel free 
to elaborate.

Good luck,
Tom


On 9/17/2015 7:05 AM, Diana Kube via Talk wrote:
> The default spell/grammar check that comes with word is not robust 
> enough for large, professional or academic manuscripts. Is anyone 
> aware of a high quality, professional level tool that works effectively with 
> Window-Eyes?
>
>
>
> I have tried both "Grammarly" and "Ginger" but although they work well 
> for my sighted husband, they are not effective using Window-Eyes. I am 
> getting a lot of negative comments regarding errors in manuscripts 
> that reviewers and editors believe should be addressed prior to submission. 
> Any suggestions??
>
> _______________________________________________
> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
> and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
>
> For membership options, visit 
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/tom.kingston%40charter.net.
> For subscription options, visit 
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
> List archives can be found at 
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
>
_______________________________________________
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/robin_van_lant%40key.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com


This communication may contain privileged and/or confidential information. It 
is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended 
recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing 
or using any of this information. If you received this communication in error, 
please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, 
whether electronic or hard copy. This communication may contain nonpublic 
personal information about consumers subject to the restrictions of the 
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. You may not directly or indirectly reuse or redisclose 
such information for any purpose other than to provide the services for which 
you are receiving the information.

127 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44114
If you prefer not to receive future e-mail offers for products or services from 
Key 
send an e-mail to mailto:[email protected] with 'No Promotional E-mails' in 
the 
SUBJECT line.

_______________________________________________
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

Reply via email to