Harold Fuchs wrote: >> >> > You could try posting this to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. I think > a) you *need* to subscribe to this list before you can post (unlike > [email protected]) and > b) Your "To begin with, It misses some common grammar mistakes which it > shouldn't" will not be considered adequate. Examples with associated > definitions of required rules might buy you progress.
Perhaps the page I linked to earlier can be useful. It has an example of a para that is used in queequeg. Here it is, shamelessly copied, for convenience: Paraphrases plays an important role in the variety and complexity of natural language documents. However, they add to the difficulty of natural language processing. Here we describe a procedure for obtaining paraphrases from news articles. Articles derived from different newspapers can contain paraphrases if it indeed report the same event on the same day. We exploit these two feature by using Named Entity recognition. Our approach is based on the assumption that named entities are preserved across paraphrases. We applied our method to articles of two domains and obtained notable example. I am curious, if you, or anyone else who is reading this post, could check grammar of this para in your installation of OOo, does it flag all the errors? > > You'll also need to specify the *exact* language you are talking about. US English. Though my locale is en_CA, but it is not supported in OOo so I use en_US in OOo. > For example, US and British English are *not* the same when it comes to Yes, I understand that. But from the feedback I see here, notice that the grammar checker attracts much more interest than the other points I listed in my OP. For technical writing, the other points though could make or break the decision to use a word processor and are usually considered more important than a grammar checker. Warm regards. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
