Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?

Subject: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Jan 16 - 03:49 PM

Grammarly

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Jan 16 - 04:46 PM

Someone can't spell "grammarye," eh?

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: GUEST,ripov
Date: 09 Jan 16 - 08:18 PM

"than your word processor does "

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 09 Jan 16 - 10:13 PM

Gnu, dear, these people actually wrote, "Find the perfect word every time with context-optimized synonym suggestions".

No way am I about to accept writing advice from anyone who would write a phrase as ugly as "context-optimized synonym suggestions".

(Yes, I know the law says the period belongs inside the quotation mark. I reject that as illogical.)

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Jan 16 - 10:38 PM

That web site may be ostentatious, but the Twitter version is a hoot. :)

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 09 Jan 16 - 10:43 PM

Dear Mr. GNU,

Please use Grammraly...and give us a report...you need not waste hast....but, do not return until you do.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

It will not cure stinking thinking

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: Newport Boy
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 05:29 AM

Ah, leeneia, 'rules', 'law' and 'grammar' - the source of so much fruitless argument.

Gnu, dear, these people actually wrote, "Find the perfect word every time with context-optimized synonym suggestions".

This is a single sentence, therefore the period belongs at the end, outside the quotation mark. Contrast that with your final paragraph:

(Yes, I know the law says the period belongs inside the quotation mark. I reject that as illogical.)

Here, the complete sentence is in parenthesis, so that is where the period belongs.

Your post is a beautiful example of the variation in placement of a period.

Phil

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 08:30 AM

A period piece - grammarly speaking.

Personally I prefer a Thesaurus and the SOED CD ROM because it can search phonetically for rhyme (including contained rhyme). But a tool is a tool and if it is not the only tool you have a rich workbench.

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 09:51 AM

Great- another example of letting machines think for people. That way lies stupidity.

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 10:32 AM

If you've used any of the scholarly guides you'll know that it isn't really etched in stone - Modern Language Association (MLA), American Psychiatric Association (APA), Chicago Manual of Style, Associated Press (AP), or Turabian. They may all agree about a period inside or outside quotes in the instance discussed above, but they parse the rest of this stuff to within an inch of its life. And if you hop across the pond and look at European style manuals, a lot of it changes.

As long as people can make themselves understood, that is communication. The "rules of grammar" are arbitrary and are essentially "manners" of how one does it to be correct. Akin to using the correct fork to eat your salad.

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 03:03 PM

Rules? I before E except after C- that's weird.

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 03:05 PM

Acme, do you really not perceive the inherent ugliness and lack of clarity in "context-optimized synonym suggestions"? Particularly since the sentence is aimed at unsophisticated writers?

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 10:12 PM

While recently editing a book, for a friend, it became painfully obvious that Oxford style, or one of the two American styles had to be adopted and applied consistently throughout the 500 page manuscript with photo captions.



Sincerely,
Gargoyle

The best editing advice I ever received was "Damn the conventions...punctuate for the reading clarity."

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 10:22 PM

I view your post as a desperate attempt to breach into the "upper kingdom of Mudcat.

Sincerely, Gargoyle

Remain in the hinter regions where your skills are prone to the nattering nay-ob'sb of empiricism.

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: gnu
Date: 11 Jan 16 - 05:16 AM

My question was simple. Apparently, assumptions abound.

Thanks all... especially those who answered, nay, responded, in a rude manner, complete with spelling and/or punctuation mistakes. Good for a laugh eh?

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 16 - 05:54 AM

Noeboddy cant not tell me how to talk proper.

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: GUEST,GIGN
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 01:41 AM

No, but I might in order to teach myself grammar. Thanks for the link

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 07:45 AM

leeneia, I guess you missed my point. Grammar is manners. It isn't communication. If you don't like the site and their context-optimized synonym suggestions then I hereby give you permission to ignore them. I do.

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 12:07 PM

Never mind.
======================
One thing I have noticed often is the high level of writing on the Mudcat Cafe. My husband's career was in an engineering firm (although he was not an engineer.) Most of the time when an engineer had to write a report, he or she did so with trepidation, and the result was awkward and verbose.

As a Taiwanese client wailed one day, "It doesn't make any sense!"

Mudcatters may try to sound like hillbillies or like the Great Panjandrum, but in either case their sentences flow smoothly, their modifiers do not dangle, their subjects and predicates agree, and you don't have to go back and reread sentences to figure out what is modifying what.

Having said that, I will say that if a person submits a paragraph that is more than six lines long, then I refuse to read it. It's just too hard to keep my place. (Yet I can read very long paragraphs in a book.)

Here's something you won't read in a usage guide. Most Mudcatters use rhythm and melody in their writing. It's subtle, but their sentences are not a collection of dense lumps strung together with prepositions and conjunctions. Not, in other words, like a necklace strung by an amateur.

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 02:14 PM

Most Mudcatters use rhythm and melody in their writing.

Wow, leeneia! You've written a good deal of drivel over the years, here. This however must top it all.

Well done.

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 04:08 PM

GUEST... allow me to use rhythm and melody in my response to your bullshit... fuck off asshole.

Sweet Jaysus I can't believe the fuckin trolls and their arsewipe comments. I only asked if anyone uses Grammarly. Assumptions and attacks abound... and, as I said, complete with spelling and/or punctuation mistakes. Unreal! What the fuck is wrong with you broke dick motherfuckers?

It's a simple question. Well, it was until the regular assholes and trolls showed up and then were joined by idiots attacking people for no good reason and doing so behind the "GUEST" moniker.

Children should be seen and not read. Get some fuckin manners and grow up. And YOU, GUEST that attacked leeneia... post your moniker ya fuckin coward... you are a piece of TRUE drivel ya broke dick fuck.

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 07:48 AM

It seems lately that particular guest doesn't say anything if he can't say something unpleasant, though he's leveled his gaze at an equal - this time.

If you use and like the Microsoft Word grammar features, then you might like this software. Is that what you're asking people to say, gnu? I disable all of the grammar nonsense in Word, and only leave on the spelling feature, never letting it "autocorrect" because it would frequently choose the wrong word to correct to, and it doesn't have as robust a vocabulary as you might like. So if I don't use Word that way, I wouldn't go out of my way to find other software to do it.

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 08:17 AM

I have used Grammarly for years. It is a pretty sound program for catching spelling errors and suggesting revisions. I am not a regular visitor to the site--really just looking for some Peg Leg Sam stuff. I am, however, a bit disheartened that an honest query can be met with such cynicism and vitriol.

Now to go look for Peg Leg....

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: GUEST,John Fitzsimmons
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 08:18 AM

Sorry. I agree that posting negative stuff anonymously is not right.

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 10:02 AM

Thanks, gnu.

About rhythm and melody in spoken language: say this quotation from gnu aloud.

"Children should be seen and not read."

The words "children should be" are eighth notes - rat-a-tat-tat, all the same length and pitch. "Seen" is a longer note, almost a dotted quarter. "And" has almost no length or emphasis - a passing eighth or even a sixteenth.

With "not read" we really hear the subtle melody. The words lengthen and the pitch goes up, then slams to a stop (Beethoven would have liked this.) with the d on "read".

It's writing like this that keeps up from falling asleep over our books.

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 03:36 PM

It's me again.

I posted the above, then played piano for a while, working on the Finnish waltz 'Metsakukkia,' which I learned about right here at the Mudcat. While doing that, my ever-reasoning left brain was quietened, and my right brain revealed the reason for Guest's vituperation.

If you look at the screen names of those who have posted here, you will note that I seem to be the only female. My bad. Females are supposed to stay silent, and in particular not raise a lone female voice.

But there was something worse than that. Namely - I called gnu "gnu dear".   ARRGH! Nobody ever calls Guest dear; he could post for a hundred years and nobody will call him dear. His vitriolic post was a spurt of jealousy, green and acidic. Too bad they don't sell an antacid for it.

To explain, let me say that I have been reading gnu's posts for many years. Though we have never met, and we live a couple thousand (perhaps) miles apart, I feel we are good acquaintances. I have read of the Iron Skillet Problem, have shared the Fuschia-Watering Dilemma, and have pictured myself watching from the front porch as gnu packs up his shotgun to go hunting. Guitar comes into it as well. Then I called him "dear".

And so, "Guest", suck it up.
==============
Re language: I originally typed this:

   a spurt of green and acid jealousy.

But my sense of rhythm was offended, so I changed it to:

   a spurt of jealousy, green and acidic.

I considered "acid" instead of "acidic", but it didn't seem right somehow.

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 11:06 AM

Other guest: that's interesting about using Grammarly for years. I didn't know that it's been around for years.

Who is Peg Leg Sam?

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: ClaireBear
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 02:28 PM

One of the things I do professionally is to edit marketing materials for high-tech companies. I often find myself reminding our tech writers to "practice noun string obfuscation avoidance." (They even gifted me with a T-shirt emblazoned with that slogan.) In plain English, that means to refrain from using a phrase all (or even most) of whose words can be read as nouns, because the challenge of differentiating its parts of speech requires the phrase to be reread, sometimes several times, before the meaning can be discerned.

"Context-optimized synonym suggestions" may not be a perfect example of this phenomenon, but it is nonetheless an example. It is what happens when all the "connective tissue" (articles, conjunctions, prepositions, etc.) is stripped from language, leaving only its bones to grate together painfully—which, in my view, is exactly the problem with this phrase.

Moreover, seen through Leeneia's "rhythm and melody" lens, the phrase is a frenetic patter song at best and a lurching, tangle-foot tango at worst. Leeneia, I have never consciously thought about language in those terms, but I will from now on. Thank you for that gift!

Claire

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: gnu
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 10:22 PM

I did say "gnightgnu" but I always check back, ready to rally if anyone takes my adieu as a sign of acquiescence... which has never been the case if you know any gnus.

I have read the subsequent posts and I have only one thing to add...

gnightgnu

Oh! And... fuck it's cold! -27WC on my sorry old ass this morning. But, not to worry. It's supposed to warm up tomorrow... so it can snow on my sorry old arthritic ass tomorrow. Why my Irish forefathers settled here instead of California is really starting to piss me off.
That is most grammatically in error as is this sentence. Deal with it.

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 12:04 PM

Beautifully said, Clairebear. I think that writers started to produce noun clusters in the belief that it is good to use fewer words. But of course, one can use too few, as well as too many.
=========
Okay, gnu. G'night. Stay warm. (I've seen -27 F here in Missouri. Now that's COLD. It was after the Mt. St. Helen's eruption put ash in the atmosphere and blocked sunlight.)
=========
Another example of rhythm and melody in a sentence. This comes from P.G. Wodehouse:

It is a mistake to curdle the reader's all the time.

Read it aloud. "-take" is on a notably higher pitch, and "all" is stretched out to be longer than the other words. Also, "all" has an interesting rise and then a drop in pitch.

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 10:44 AM

leeneia,

I really don't get you point regarding the P.G. Wodehouse sentence.

Yes you could read it in such a way to make 'mistake' higher in pitch, and 'all' to be to be longer than the two syllabled words, but you certainly don't have to.

I don't see how that pronunciation is intrinsically correct?

Subject: RE: Tech: Grammarly. Anyone use it?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 04:58 PM

It seems likely, that's all.