ACOUST%BNR.CA@MITVMA.MIT.EDU ("Nahum Goldmann", N.) (08/08/88)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 88 14:17 EDT
To: Nick Papadakis <AIList-Request@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
From: "Nahum (N.) Goldmann" <ACOUST%BNR.CA@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sender: "Nahum (N.) Goldmann" <ACOUST%BNR.CA@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Response to - RightWriter and Grammatik II (AILIst v8 #27)
In the following text I'll give both packages every chance to
demonstrate their capabilities.
I was using both packages for several years. Both are strong on
the evaluation and improvement of readibility (sentence length,
average word duration, presence of esoteric words), and not as
strong on suggesting alternative grammar rules (several thousand
rules in each package are obviously not sufficient for a
thorough evaluation of a typical technical text). User
interfaces in both packages could also be somewhat improved.
I can't comment whether they use expert system technology in
both packages, simply because I do not know how one defines what
is proper ES and what is not. My impression is that they use
something similar.
As far as readibility evaluation goes, their results are more or
less consistent. In grammar analysis I found them
complimentary, with very little correlation between their
suggestions for text improvements.
I found both packages useful for two reasons:
1. They impose on a writer the discipline of writing prose
in short sentences, and help to eliminate complex
worlds, making text more readable. This, however, is
important only for a short period, after which an
average writer does it more or less automatically.
2. They are invaluable in dealing with colleagues and
students of mine, who otherwise would not believe that
their latest report is totally unreadable (for some
reason or another everybody believes it when told by
computer!).
Overall, both packages provide good value for money (about
US$100-125 per package). I have not seen any announcement on
Grammatik III so far, but when it comes I will probably order
it.
Greetings and love.
Nahum Goldmann
e-mail: <acoust@bnr.CA>
(613)763-2329
Analysis by Grammatik II:
Subject: In response to Robert Dale's message on RightWriter
[#Capitalization : don't mix cases]
and
Grammatik II (AILIst v8 #
[#Capitalization : don't mix cases]
27)
In the following text I'll give both packages every chance to
demonstrate
[#Overstated or pretentious : show or prove]
their capabilities.
I was using both packages for several years. Both are strong on
the evaluation and improvement of readibility (sentence length,
average word duration, presence of esoteric words), and not as
strong on suggesting alternative grammar rules (several thousand
rules in each package are obviously
[#Hackneyed, Cliche, or Trite : use this word sparingly]
not sufficient for a
thorough evaluation of a typical technical text). User
interfaces in both packages could also be somewhat improved.
I can't comment whether they use expert system technology in
both packages, simply because I do not know how one defines what
is proper ES and what is not. My impression is that they use
something similar.
As far as readibility evaluation goes, their results are more or
less
[#Misused often : use less for nonnumerical quantity, fewer for nu
mber]
consistent. In grammar analysis I found them
complimentary,
[#Misused often : this means flattering or free; complementary is
completing]
with very little correlation between their
suggestions for text improvements.
I found both packages useful for two reasons:
1. They impose on a writer the discipline of writing prose
in short sentences, and help to eliminate complex
worlds, making text more readable. This, however, is
important only for a short period, after which an
average writer does it more or less
[#Misused often : use less for nonnumerical quantity, fewer for nu
mber]
automatically.
2. They are invaluable in dealing with colleagues and
students of mine, who otherwise would not believe that
their latest report is totally unreadable (for some
reason or another everybody believes it when told by
computer!).
Overall,
[#Hackneyed, Cliche, or Trite : total or general]
both packages provide good value for money (about
US$100-125 per package). I have not seen any announcement on
Grammatik III so far, but when it comes I will probably order
it.
Greetings and love.
Nahum Goldmann
e-mail: <acoust@bnr.C
[#Punctuation : add space after punctuation]
A>
(613)763-2329
SUMMARY FOR gram.out Suspect problems marked: 9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade School High School College Graduate School
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Fr So Jr Sr +1 +2 +3 +4 PhD
---------------------------*-----------------------------------------------
* - Flesch Grade Level (Reading Ease: 55)
Sentence Statistics
Number of Sentences: 16 Short (< 14 words): 8 (50%)
Average Length: 18.0 words Long (> 30 words): 3 (19%)
End with ?: 0 ( 0%) Shortest (# 12): 1 words
End with !: 1 ( 6%) Longest (# 3): 47 words
Word Statistics
Number of Words: 288 Average Length: 5.0 letters
Special Statistics (as estimated % of Words or Sentences)
Passive voice: 0 ( 0% S) Prepositions: 33 (11% W)
RightWriter Analysis:
Subject: In response to Robert Dale's message on RightWriter and
Grammatik II (AILIst<<*+36. UNUSUAL CAPITALIZATION? *>> v8 #27)
In the following text I'll give both packages every chance to
demonstrate their capabilities.<<*+17. LONG SENTENCE: 28 WORDS
*>>
I was using both packages for several years. Both are strong on
the evaluation and improvement of readibility (sentence length,
average word duration, presence of esoteric words), and not as
strong on suggesting alternative grammar rules (several thousand
rules in each package are obviously not sufficient for a
thorough evaluation of a typical technical text)<<*+17. LONG
SENTENCE: 47 WORDS *>><<*+31. COMPLEX SENTENCE *>><<*+39. CAN
SIMPLER TERMS BE USED? *>>. User interfaces in both packages
could also be somewhat improved<<*+21. PASSIVE VOICE: be
somewhat improved *>>.
I can't comment whether they use expert system technology in
both packages, simply because I do not know how one defines what
is proper ES and what is not.<<*+17. LONG SENTENCE: 29 WORDS
*>> My impression is that they use something similar.
As far as readibility evaluation goes, their results are more or
less consistent. In grammar analysis I found them
complimentary, with very little correlation between their
suggestions for text improvements.
I found both packages useful for two reasons:
1. They impose on a writer the discipline of writing prose
in short sentences, and help to eliminate<<*+7. REPLACE
eliminate BY SIMPLER cut out *>> complex worlds, making
text more readable.<<*+17. LONG SENTENCE: 32 WORDS *>>
This, however, is important only for a short period,
after which an average writer does it more or less
automatically.
2. They are invaluable in dealing with colleagues and
students of mine, who otherwise would not believe that
their latest report is totally unreadable (for some
reason or another everybody believes it when told by
computer!<<*+17. LONG SENTENCE: 36 WORDS *>><<*+31.
COMPLEX SENTENCE *>>).
Overall, both packages provide good value for money (about
US$100-125 per package). I have not seen any announcement on
Grammatik III so far, but when it comes I will probably order
it.
Greetings and love.
Nahum Goldmann
e-mail: <acoust@bnr.CA>
(613)763-2329
<<** SUMMARY **>>
OVERALL CRITIQUE FOR: g:cocos.doc
READABILITY INDEX: 12.12
Readers need a 12th grade level of education to understand.
Total Number of Words in Document: 290
Total Number of Words within Sentences: 285
Total Number of Sentences: 15
Total Number of Syllables: 499
STRENGTH INDEX: 0.32
The writing can be made more direct by using:
- the active voice
- shorter sentences
- more common words
DESCRIPTIVE INDEX: 0.92
The writing style is overly descriptive.
Many adverbs are being used.
JARGON INDEX: 0.26
SENTENCE STRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Most sentences contain multiple clauses.
Try to use more simple sentences.
14. Consider using more predicate verbs.
<< WORDS TO REVIEW >>
Review the following list for negative words (N), colloquial
words (C), jargon (J), misspellings (?), misused words (?),
or words which your reader may not understand (?).
ACOUSTBNR(?) 1 AILIST(?) 1
COLLEAGUES(?) 1 COMPLIMENTARY(?) 1
CORRELATION(J) 1 DALE'S(?) 1
ES(?) 1 ESOTERIC(J) 1
GOLDMANN(?) 1 GRAMMATIKII(?) 1
GRAMMATIKIII(?) 1 NAHUM(?) 1
READABLE(?) 1 READIBILITY(J) 2
US100125(?) 1 V8(?) 1
<< END OF WORDS TO REVIEW LIST >>