paixao@ug.cs.dal.ca (Nuno M. Paixao) (02/14/91)
I am in the market for a grammar checker, and I was wondering if any of you have any good or bad things to say about a checker you might be using. I have been able to get the name of three different ones that are commercially available.They are: 1. Correct Grammar (from Lifetree Software) 2. Sensible Grammar (from Sensible Software) 3. MacProof (from Lexpertise) Any comments about these or other packages would be appreciated. The package will primarily be used on WORD 4.0, and PAGEMAKER 3.0 documents on my Classic (2MB/40MB). E-Mail responses woould be prefered. If there is enough interest, I'll post my findings to the Net. Thanks Nuno -- Nuno M. Paixao \\ PAIXAO@UG.CS.DAL.CA \\ So I don't have an exciting 2319 Clifton St. \\ DEXTER@AC.DAL.CA \\ .SIGNATURE file.... If you Halifax, NS, CAN. \\ DEXTER@DALAC.BITNET \\ hate it that much, why don't (902) 492-9402 \\ \\ you design a better one for me.
rda@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Robert Dale) (02/16/91)
In article <1991Feb14.025044.2809@cs.dal.ca>, paixao@ug.cs.dal.ca (Nuno M. Paixao) writes: > I have been able to get the name of three different ones that are > commercially available.They are: > > 1. Correct Grammar (from Lifetree Software) > 2. Sensible Grammar (from Sensible Software) > 3. MacProof (from Lexpertise) Only the first of these is actually a grammar checker. As a colleague said of "Sensible Grammar" on exploring the package: "it would seem that the only sensible grammar is no grammar at all". The only other Mac grammar checker is Grammatik, but Correct Grammar is far superior. R -- Robert Dale Phone: +44 31 650 4416 | University of Edinburgh UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!its63b!cogsci!rda | Centre for Cognitive Science ARPA: rda%cogsci.ed.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | 2 Buccleuch Place JANET: rda@uk.ac.ed.cogsci or R.Dale@uk.ac.ed | Edinburgh EH8 9LW Scotland
bose@milton.u.washington.edu (Rob Olsen) (02/18/91)
>> 1. Correct Grammar (from Lifetree Software) >> 2. Sensible Grammar (from Sensible Software) >> 3. MacProof (from Lexpertise) >Only the first of these is actually a grammar checker. As a colleague >said of "Sensible Grammar" on exploring the package: "it would seem >that the only sensible grammar is no grammar at all". >The only other Mac grammar checker is Grammatik, but Correct Grammar >is far superior. I am thinking of buying a grammar checker. For those of you who bought any grammar check, could you tell me how you like them? Thanks ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is no place like home.
rq02+@andrew.cmu.edu (Richard Quadrel) (02/18/91)
Robert Dale writes: > Only the first of these (Correct Grammar) is actually a grammar > checker. As a colleague said of "Sensible Grammar" on exploring > the package: "it would seem that the only sensible grammar is no > grammar at all." > The only other Mac grammar checker is Grammatik, but Correct Grammar > is far superior. I did a comparison between Correct Grammar, Sensible Grammar and Grammatik by running all three programs through the sample files that were provided by the software companies, as well as a number of my own files. All of these files contained deliberate errors which were designed to check the behavior of the programs. The program that caught the least number of these errors was Correct Grammar. In fact, Correct Grammar made some suggestions for improvement that were simply incorrect. Correct Grammar did, however, have the cleanest interface and was the easiest to use. In spite of its interface, though, this program went immediately into the trash. I don't know what kind of papers Mr. Dale writes, so I have no idea why he made that comment about Sensible Grammar. While no grammar checker is perfect, both Sensible Grammar and Grammatik were successful in dicovering errors in both my technical papers and informal correspondance. Both programs allow the user to control the rules that are used to perform the checking, and both programs are quite comprehensive. Personally, I prefer Grammatik, primarily because of its interface. Grammatik highlights the errors it finds in a single text window, while Sens. Gram uses three or four windows that contain errors, forcing you to read each one separately. Sensible Grammar doesn't seem to catch as many potential problems as Grammatik does, but it's still a pretty good program. And either of these beats the pants off of Correct Grammar, in my opinion. For Mr. Dale and others: try running Correct Grammar and Grammatik on a sample file (I'll be happy to provide one of my own!) and compare for yourself! ... and then run it on this message - obviously I need grammatical help myself! :^) Rich Quadrel rquadrel@cad.cs.cmu.edu
tgm@ecl.psu.edu (02/19/91)
In article <16619@milton.u.washington.edu>, bose@milton.u.washington.edu (Rob Olsen) writes: >>> 1. Correct Grammar (from Lifetree Software) >>> 2. Sensible Grammar (from Sensible Software) >>> 3. MacProof (from Lexpertise) > >>Only the first of these is actually a grammar checker. As a colleague >>said of "Sensible Grammar" on exploring the package: "it would seem >>that the only sensible grammar is no grammar at all". > >>The only other Mac grammar checker is Grammatik, but Correct Grammar >>is far superior. > > I am thinking of buying a grammar checker. For those of you who bought any > grammar check, could you tell me how you like them? Thanks > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > There is no place like home. I am using an older version of Correct Grammar, and I think it's pretty good. --Tom Moertel thor@chopin.psu.edu tgm@eclu.psu.edu
rda@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Robert Dale) (02/20/91)
Oh dear I knew this would happen ... rq02+@andrew.cmu.edu (Richard Quadrel) writes in response to my statement that >> The only other Mac grammar checker is Grammatik, but Correct Grammar >> is far superior. >I don't know what kind of papers Mr. Dale writes, so I have no idea why he >made that comment about Sensible Grammar. While no grammar checker is >perfect, both Sensible Grammar and Grammatik were successful in dicovering >errors in both my technical papers and informal correspondance. ... >... >Sensible Grammar doesn't seem to catch as many potential problems as >Grammatik does, but it's still a pretty good program. And either of these >beats the pants off of Correct Grammar, in my opinion. For Mr. Dale and >others: try running Correct Grammar and Grammatik on a sample file (I'll >be happy to provide one of my own!) and compare for yourself! Ok. I was addressing only the issue of *syntactic error detection and correction* -- the original poster asked for a *grammar* checker. These programs do other things, but Sensible Grammar isn't particularly interested in doing *syntax* (= grammar in my language) checking -- I'm talking here about things like subject-verb number agreement and other genuine syntactic problems. Because of its limited pattern matching techniques, Sensible Grammar generates a lot of false positives: for example, if you say "When is she going to work?", SG will suggest replacing "she going" by "her going". Grammatik (at least in Version 3; haven't tested Version 4 yet) uses (as far as we can tell by trying to break it) technology based on the old Unix WWB PARTS program, plus some error-locating heuristics on top. This is pretty limited for catching syntactic errors: for example, it doesn't spot the problem with "John and Mary starts the car". Correct Grammar, on the other hand, does appear to carry out some real parsing of the text. These programs all do many other things quite well, and I would be the first to agree that the interface is very important, although there are of course different preferences here. But when it comes to detecting genuine syntactic problems, Correct Grammar wins. I should add that (a) my awareness of the limitations of various systems here is largely due to the detailed examinations performed by a colleague, Shona Douglas, and that (b) I have no connections with the manufacturers of any of these programs. R -- Robert Dale Phone: +44 31 650 4416 | University of Edinburgh UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!its63b!cogsci!rda | Centre for Cognitive Science ARPA: rda%cogsci.ed.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | 2 Buccleuch Place JANET: rda@uk.ac.ed.cogsci or R.Dale@uk.ac.ed | Edinburgh EH8 9LW Scotland