Alleged grammatical error in Word 2002

Alleged grammatical error in Word 2002

My current compromise to avoid sexism in writing is to follow
The Times of London and use appropriate variants of the plural
pronoun. eg., "their". The grammar checker flags this usage and
I wonder if anyone know a way to make the dumb program accept
it. I do *not* like the suggested correction "his or her".

Others may disagree with me and I won't argue with them but is 
there a way to
get the program to work as *I* want it?


 James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 16:42:44 -0500 author: James Silverton not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

Re: Alleged grammatical error in Word 2002

Word is neither dumb nor intelligent: it's a *computer program*, under YOUR 
control. Switch off the rules you don't like: or are you too dumb to 
understand the significance of the 'Ignore rule' button?




"James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not> wrote in message 
news:-LqdnS_RvtFXrHLYnZ2dnUVZ_rGinZ2d@comcast.com...
> My current compromise to avoid sexism in writing is to follow
> The Times of London and use appropriate variants of the plural
> pronoun. eg., "their". The grammar checker flags this usage and
> I wonder if anyone know a way to make the dumb program accept
> it. I do *not* like the suggested correction "his or her".
>
> Others may disagree with me and I won't argue with them but is there a way 
> to
> get the program to work as *I* want it?
>
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland
>
> E-mail, with obvious alterations:
> not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:01:06 +1100 author: Jezebel

Re: Alleged grammatical error in Word 2002

"Jezebel"  wrote in message 
news:%23UjabQQYHHA.3268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Word is neither dumb nor intelligent: it's a *computer 
> program*, under YOUR control. Switch off the rules you don't 
> like: or are you too dumb to understand the significance of 
> the 'Ignore rule' button?
>
>
>
>
> "James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not> wrote in 
> message news:-LqdnS_RvtFXrHLYnZ2dnUVZ_rGinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> My current compromise to avoid sexism in writing is to follow
>> The Times of London and use appropriate variants of the 
>> plural
>> pronoun. eg., "their". The grammar checker flags this usage 
>> and
>> I wonder if anyone know a way to make the dumb program accept
>> it. I do *not* like the suggested correction "his or her".
>>
>> Others may disagree with me and I won't argue with them but 
>> is there a way to
>> get the program to work as *I* want it?


Thank you for your polite and helpful suggestion but where is 
this button? It is the first time I've tried to do something 
like this.


-- 
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:08:25 -0500 author: James Silverton not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

Re: Alleged grammatical error in Word 2002

If you can't find it, I guess the task is beyond you.



"James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not> wrote in message 
news:I4CdnRg5KNRBqnLYnZ2dnUVZ_vupnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Jezebel"  wrote in message 
> news:%23UjabQQYHHA.3268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Word is neither dumb nor intelligent: it's a *computer program*, under 
>> YOUR control. Switch off the rules you don't like: or are you too dumb to 
>> understand the significance of the 'Ignore rule' button?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not> wrote in message 
>> news:-LqdnS_RvtFXrHLYnZ2dnUVZ_rGinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> My current compromise to avoid sexism in writing is to follow
>>> The Times of London and use appropriate variants of the plural
>>> pronoun. eg., "their". The grammar checker flags this usage and
>>> I wonder if anyone know a way to make the dumb program accept
>>> it. I do *not* like the suggested correction "his or her".
>>>
>>> Others may disagree with me and I won't argue with them but is there a 
>>> way to
>>> get the program to work as *I* want it?
>
>
> Thank you for your polite and helpful suggestion but where is this button? 
> It is the first time I've tried to do something like this.
>
>
> -- 
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland

date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:12:05 +1100 author: Jezebel

Re: Alleged grammatical error in Word 2002

Jezebel  wrote  on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:12:05 +1100:

 Do you get some sort of a high from rudeness? Stay away from 
high windows, city gates and dogs!

Plonk!

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations: 
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:48:00 -0500 author: James Silverton

Re: Alleged grammatical error in Word 2002

G'Day James,

Jezebel has a trying and delicate job.

Since the Vietnam - beg pardon Iraq - "coalition of the willing" was formed,
she has (to put it delicately) had to remove the "brown stuff" from our PMs
nose where he has been paying due homage to your late - beg pardon great
- President George.

Now there is a thingy in Word that seems to be important, and it is:
        Tools>Options.

There are all sorts of whatsits that a person, exalted or otherwise, may change
to suit his or her unique taste.

One such is on the "Spelling and Grammar" tab where, under Grammar, there
is a "Settings" widget.

I recommend a thorough exploration of "Tools>Options" since, like our
languages, much may be open to interpretation.

By the way, I believe that a-sexist correctness is now a bit (like political
correctness) "on the nose"

We call female Stars "actors" yet they still insist on using the actresses
toilet - strange really ...
-- 
Regards,
Pat Garard
Melbourne, Australia
_______________________

"James Silverton"  wrote in message 
news:OGRWG93YHHA.808@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Jezebel  wrote  on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:12:05 +1100:
>
> Do you get some sort of a high from rudeness? Stay away from high windows, 
> city gates and dogs!
>
> Plonk!
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland
>
> E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:45:44 +1100 author: Pat Garard apgarard-bigpond:net:au

Re: Alleged grammatical error in Word 2002

Pat  wrote  on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:45:44 +1100:

 PG> Jezebel has a trying and delicate job.

  PG> Now there is a thingy in Word that seems to be important,
 PG> and it is:
 Tools>> Options.

 PG> There are all sorts of whatsits that a person, exalted or
 PG> otherwise, may change to suit his or her unique taste.

 PG> One such is on the "Spelling and Grammar" tab where, under
 PG> Grammar, there is a "Settings" widget.

  The whole subject of gender correctness is a tricky one that, 
as I said, I did not really want to get into. I am perfectly 
willing to regard words like "waiter" and "actor" as not gender 
specific but not everyone agrees with me. Really, I was not 
looking to turn off number agreement in Word tho' that seems the 
only way to get what I want. I'll have another look and see if I 
can do something. Like spelling checking, I am willing to agree 
to disagree with the suggestions but, AFAICT, unlike the speller 
there does not seem be an "accept this" or "always accept this" 
option for grammar in Word 2002.  That would be sufficient in my 
opinion.

Thanks for your suggestions.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations: 
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:30:29 -0400 author: James Silverton

Re: Alleged grammatical error in Word 2002

James  wrote to Pat Garard on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:30:29 -0400:

I'll just add a further observation.

 JS>   The whole subject of gender correctness is a tricky one
 JS> that, as I said, I did not really want to get into. I am
 JS> perfectly willing to regard words like "waiter" and "actor"
 JS> as not gender specific but not everyone agrees with me.

It is interesting that sentences like "The waiter tripped when 
she brought the meal and the actor said she was going to sue" 
are not flagged as wrong :-)


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations: 
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:36:23 -0400 author: James Silverton

Re: Alleged grammatical error in Word 2002

"James Silverton"  wrote

> It is interesting that sentences like "The waiter tripped when she brought 
> the meal and the actor said she was going to sue" are not flagged as wrong 
> :-)

I would be flabbergasted if they were... ;-)

-- 
Bob
http://www.kanyak.com

date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:53:16 +0200 author: Opinicus

Re: Alleged grammatical error in Word 2002

Opinicus  wrote  on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:53:16 +0200:

 ??>> It is interesting that sentences like "The waiter tripped
 ??>> when she brought the meal and the actor said she was going
 ??>> to sue" are not flagged as wrong :-)

 O> I would be flabbergasted if they were... ;-)

Even I could make a case that the sentence could be absolutely 
correct whatever you think about gender-correctness but the 
grammar checker sometimes flags alleged errors, especially, 
plurality of verbs etc., simply because the words are separated. 
As I said, the grammar checker would be more acceptable if there 
were a fuggetaboutit setting :-)


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations: 
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:17:04 -0400 author: James Silverton

Re: Alleged grammatical error in Word 2002

> As I said, the grammar checker would be more acceptable if there were a 
> fuggetaboutit setting :-)

Which there is, as originally established.

date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:38:56 +1100 author: Jezebel

Re: Alleged grammatical error in Word 2002

James  wrote to Opinicus on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:17:04 -0400:

 ??>>> It is interesting that sentences like "The waiter tripped
 ??>>> when she brought the meal and the actor said she was
 ??>>> going to sue" are not flagged as wrong :-)

 O>> I would be flabbergasted if they were... ;-)

 JS> Even I could make a case that the sentence could be
 JS> absolutely correct whatever you think about
 JS> gender-correctness but the grammar checker sometimes flags
 JS> alleged errors, especially, plurality of verbs etc., simply
 JS> because the words are separated. As I said, the grammar
 JS> checker would be more acceptable if there were a
 JS> fuggetaboutit setting :-)

I have just noticed that there *is* an "ignore once" option, so 
to a large extent I do have what I need if not a general turn 
off. I guess I should have gone back and tried again but I was 
distracted by pejorative matters. I don't know how I missed it 
but I wish someone had just pointed out my mistake:-)


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations: 
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:35:11 -0400 author: James Silverton