What's the best grammar checker?
Occupant
grammar needs to be 100% correct. What's the best and most thorough
grammar checking program out there? And will it correct this message
that I just wrote? I'm using Word for Windows 6.0.
Tshen
: I'm writing a novel that I plan to publish and package myself, so the
: grammar needs to be 100% correct. What's the best and most thorough
: grammar checking program out there? And will it correct this message
: that I just wrote? I'm using Word for Windows 6.0.
I'm sorry to inform you that all grammar checkers currently on the market
are jokes at best and junk at worst, especially for fiction. A sentence
like: "I vowed to show my grinning nemesis the finest me." would give any
grammar checker fits. Also, most grammar checkers haven't figured out
quotation marks yet. The best grammar cheker you can own is still the one
in your head.
--Tshen
Qodaxti Institute, 87th stratum
Rheal Nadeau
Reid Goldsborough <reid...@netaxs.com> wrote:
]: that I just wrote? I'm using Word for Windows 6.0.
]
]All computerized grammar checkers are far from foolproof. Undoubtedly
]among the responses to you message will be posts claiming they're
]worthless. Not true. They miss a lot of mistakes and flag a lot of
]constructions that aren't mistakes, but the good ones catch enough to make
]them worth while.
And so, in order to benefit from a grammar checker, you need to know
grammar well enough to know when the checker is right, and when it's
wrong. Which means you could get it right without the checker - all
the software can do is remind you to be careful. (That's useful enough
- I do use a spellchecker now and then, even though my spelling is
good, because neither my typing nor my attention to detail are
perfect. But anyone relying on a grammar or spell checker to
compensate for their own lack of knowledge isn't going to benefit, just
get a false sense of security. The spell checker says its write, sew
it is.)
The (I spell reality with an "h") Rhealist
Reid Goldsborough
: I'm writing a novel that I plan to publish and package myself, so the
: grammar needs to be 100% correct. What's the best and most thorough
: grammar checking program out there? And will it correct this message
: that I just wrote? I'm using Word for Windows 6.0.
All computerized grammar checkers are far from foolproof. Undoubtedly
among the responses to you message will be posts claiming they're
worthless. Not true. They miss a lot of mistakes and flag a lot of
constructions that aren't mistakes, but the good ones catch enough to make
them worth while. The grammar checker in WinWord is a good one, but the
best one out there is Grammatik, according to most reviews, including my
own. It's available as a standalone program, and it comes bundled with
WordPerfect.
Reid Goldsborough~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~reid...@netaxs.com
Computer columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer
Author of the book Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway
Places to read parts of Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway:
* Satore Township. Point your Web browser at
http://www.crl.com/~mikekell/reid.html
* Macmillan Information SuperLibrary. Point your Web browser at
http://www.mcp.com/, then click or choose Alpha.
To order the book, phone Macmillan Publishing at 800-428-5331.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reid Goldsborough
: And so, in order to benefit from a grammar checker, you need to know
: grammar well enough to know when the checker is right, and when it's
: wrong.
This is very true. But most writers, I'd say, fall in this group.
: Which means you could get it right without the checker - all
: the software can do is remind you to be careful.
This also is true. And this is the whole point. Grammar checkers, like
spell checkers, check for mistakes. Everytime I submit something to an
editor I use both (actually a combination). And despite being fairly
attentive to detail in submitted work, nearly every time this digital
proofreader lurking somewhere behind my computer screen flags legitimate
spelling and grammar mistakes. By correcting them, I look better.
The false positives I ignore. And the missed mistakes, well, that's why
publications and publishers employ proofreaders. <g>
Reid Goldsborough~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~reid...@netaxs.com
Computer columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer
Author of the book Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Charles Good
However, I have evaluated several grammar checkers and they do a
reasonably good job with "structured" documents such as business
communications and technical writing.
Products like Reference Software's Grammatik are expecially good
because they allow the user to customize the checking and build an
exceptions log. The better checkers also permit interactive sessions
with your source file which means they are compatible with your word
processor package.
Such checkers are very handy if you are not an English major and do not
have access to a professional proofreader or staff editor. Even if you
do have access to such services, a good grammar checker will catch a
lot of oversight mistakes and mechanical problems before your document
gets edited (which your editor will appreciate). Checkers will also
help you reduce wordiness and avoid big word (polysyllable) constructions
that make the document harder to read. After all, when you write for the
general public, the rules are still: simple, direct expression appropriate
for a 6th grade reading level.
Grammar checkers are certainly worth the $60 - $100 you pay for the software.
You will see a quick return in terms of the time it saves you from start to finish
on a draft, and the reduced time (and money) it takes an editor to review/markup.
It also serves as an unbiased mentor that questions your writing based on
consistent rules, and in so doing, forces you to do the same.
D. Y.
Occupant <amb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I'm writing a novel that I plan to publish and package myself, so the
>grammar needs to be 100% correct. What's the best and most thorough
>grammar checking program out there? And will it correct this message
>that I just wrote? I'm using Word for Windows 6.0.
Some thoughts on this subject:
I have discovered that grammar checkers do little to make your prose
any better, other than get the surface mistakes. If there are serious
problems with the material you construct with, no matter how much polish
you put on the furniture, it will still look ugly.
Quite often, the best check is a second pair of eyes.
You do have to be careful to whom you give this task to, many people lacking
the skills and the eye for critiquing a manuscript. They will quite often
pick the grammar since they have not yet developed the skill for judging
rhetorical effectiveness, and since they cannot judge effectiveness, they
judge grammar -- something that cannot easily be contested.
The hardest part is to get someone to get their thoughts clear. Once
they do that, the rest is saying it clearly. I spent some time trying
to get someone to figure out what they were saying. After a while, I
started sounding like a broken record!
John Ciardi said that writing cannot be taught -- that it is a process of
groping, and you are finished when you have a sense that you have groped
to something. Of course, there is always more work that could be done,
but somehow, there is a sense that enough is enough and what is said, is said.
The most that a writing teacher can do is to encourage the students and
perhaps light the fire.
Even the rules of thumb that they use in Rhetoric cannot be applied
with religious fevor. The student that I was helping kept talking about
how they had to do use various common topics and language skill but I
suspect that their teacher was presenting this, since they have to give
something to people who do not know how to write well. A well written
work can get away with a lot of things that writing teachers dislike, and
use these exceptions with great effect.
DY :-)
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
D M Yoshikami :-) ;-) :-) | Internet: yosh...@usuhsb.usuhs.mil
+1 (301) 295-3304 | Bitnet : yosh...@usuhsb.bitnet
Yetre modem, seeyonem ganum, ende atmavin anandamay!
Kathy Vincent
: In article <3nhc1n$p...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
: Occupant <amb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >I'm writing a novel that I plan to publish and package myself, so the
: >grammar needs to be 100% correct. What's the best and most thorough
: >grammar checking program out there? And will it correct this message
: >that I just wrote? I'm using Word for Windows 6.0.
: Some thoughts on this subject:
: I have discovered that grammar checkers do little to make your prose
: any better, other than get the surface mistakes. If there are serious
: problems with the material you construct with, no matter how much polish
: you put on the furniture, it will still look ugly. ...
That's my take on the subject as well. Also, you have to be able to
interpret the results knowledgeably, know what feedback to accept
and what to reject. So a grammar checker may be useful, but it's
no guarantee. As DY goes on to say:
: Quite often, the best check is a second pair of eyes.
Yes. Knowledgeable eyes.
Kathy Vincent
vinc...@wfu.edu | un...@wrddo.att.com
Fred Welden
In article <3no5i9$h...@info.usuhs.mil>, d...@info.usuhs.mil (D. Y.) writes:
[in part]
|Even the rules of thumb that they use in Rhetoric cannot be applied
|with religious fevor. The student that I was helping kept talking about
|how they had to do use various common topics and language skill but I
|suspect that their teacher was presenting this, since they have to give
|something to people who do not know how to write well. A well written
|work can get away with a lot of things that writing teachers dislike, and
|use these exceptions with great effect.
This is a slightly different take on my pet peeve against those who say
"You have to know the rules before you can break them." But then,
those of you who are following along with your programs in hand already
knew that DY and I are largely in agreement about the worth of that
axiom.
--Fred | sas...@dobo.unx.sas.com
| Dobonia: vacation wonderland only a short walk from mwville
Mike Huber
helps. I don't rely on it, and I usualy don't take it's suggestions,
but it gives me another way to look at a text. Sentences that it
flags generaly deserve another look. All the sentences deserve
another look, actualy, but the ones that the computer doesn't
like somewhat more so.
Even a fake grammar checker that just popped up sentences
at random for individual attention would be a good thing.
It sounds, though, like D.Y. is looking for a substitute for
a human proofreader and editor. Sorry, I don't think that
software is likely to hit the shelves during any of our
lifetimes.
-------------------------------
mike....@software.rockwell.com
If you never fail, you aren't trying hard enough.
m...@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
> The hardest part is to get someone to get their thoughts clear. Once
> they do that, the rest is saying it clearly. I spent some time trying
> to get someone to figure out what they were saying. After a while, I
> started sounding like a broken record!
>
> John Ciardi said that writing cannot be taught -- that it is a process of
> groping, and you are finished when you have a sense that you have groped
> to something. Of course, there is always more work that could be done,
> but somehow, there is a sense that enough is enough and what is said, is said.
> The most that a writing teacher can do is to encourage the students and
> perhaps light the fire.
To quote an old and musty Fortune file,
As a goatherd learns his trade by goat, so a writer
learns his trade by wrote.
--
(This man's opinions are his own.)
From mole-end Mark Terribile
m...@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
(Training and consulting in C, C++, UNIX, etc.)
Hound of Cullen
[snippety]
> Such checkers are very handy if you are not an English major and do not
> have access to a professional proofreader or staff editor.
[snip]
This sentiment drives me nuts! Look, if you are college-educated and a
native English speaker then you _should be able to construct a
gramatically correct sentence. If you cannot, ask for your money back
from your alma mater 'cause they didn't do the job right. Think about
it! If you're not writing to be read on a sixth-grade level then you
_need to work on your writing.
English majors _do _not necessarily study grammar, sentence structure, and
mechanics of English. I studied the history/evolution of the language,
the Romanic Poets, Hemmingway, and Science Fiction. It was assumed that I
would write well, but the same assumption applied in the science, history
and social science classes I took.
Grammar checkers _may help (I hate them). But you would be better served
to pick up a copy of The Elements of Style and read it from cover to
cover. Then write and learn to revise your writing. This will let all of
those English majors go off and talk about postmodernism, instead of
cleaning up your messes.
Hound (grumble, grumble, kvetch, kvetch) of Cullen
Jim M
In article <3nj235$m...@netaxs.com>, <reid...@netaxs.com> writes:
> Path:
news.alpha.net!mvb.saic.com!unogate!news.service.uci.edu!usc!math.ohio-state.edu
!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu
!netaxs.com!reidgold
> From: reid...@netaxs.com (Reid Goldsborough)
> Newsgroups: misc.writing
> Subject: Re: What's the best grammar checker?
> Date: 25 Apr 1995 14:48:05 GMT
> Organization: Philadelphia's Complete Internet Provider
> Lines: 30
> Distribution: world
> Message-ID: <3nj235$m...@netaxs.com>
> References: <783231...@orionsys.com> <3nhc1n$p...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: unix1.netaxs.com
> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
> Occupant (amb...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : I'm writing a novel that I plan to publish and package myself, so the
> : grammar needs to be 100% correct. What's the best and most thorough
> : grammar checking program out there? And will it correct this message
> : that I just wrote? I'm using Word for Windows 6.0.
>
> among the responses to you message will be posts claiming they're
> worthless. Not true. They miss a lot of mistakes and flag a lot of
> constructions that aren't mistakes, but the good ones catch enough to make
> them worth while. The grammar checker in WinWord is a good one, but the
> best one out there is Grammatik, according to most reviews, including my
> own. It's available as a standalone program, and it comes bundled with
> WordPerfect.
>
>
> Computer columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer
> Author of the book Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway
>
> http://www.crl.com/~mikekell/reid.html
> * Macmillan Information SuperLibrary. Point your Web browser at
> http://www.mcp.com/, then click or choose Alpha.
>
> To order the book, phone Macmillan Publishing at 800-428-5331.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
spell checker, thesaurus, and grammatech. I highly recommend it!
JMingo
e-mail address.
Jack (Kate Vincent's good too, but you probably wouldn't be able to afford
her rates) Mingo
Kathy Vincent
: In article <Zisbo-28049...@pziselberger.bbn.com>, Zi...@aol.com
: (Hound of Cullen) wrote:
: > Grammar checkers _may help (I hate them). But you would be better served
: > to pick up a copy of The Elements of Style and read it from cover to
: > cover. Then write and learn to revise your writing. This will let all of
: > those English majors go off and talk about postmodernism, instead of
: > cleaning up your messes.
: Why do you assume English majors know anything about writing? <g> Knowing
: how to build something is not the same as knowing how to admire its
: artistic qualities. For example, you wouldn't want a landscape painter to
: be the one designing the bridge you want to drive on. Same principle
: applies.
Glad I saw that "<g>" at the last minute.
I don't see your principle applying. An engineer studies bridge
construction, learns the principles of building a good bridge,
goes out and builds a bridge, and recognizes a well-designed bridge
when s/he sees one. THAT's the principle I'd apply here, not the
landscape painter / bridge builder analogy.
Except for one small point: My guess is that few people go into
engineering who don't want to be engineers. Tons of people go into
English just because they can't think of anything else to major in
and, "Hey, I speak it good and write it sorta already, don't I?"
Kathy
An English major who DOES know something about writing
and who, actually, cares very little about PostModernism ...
--
Kathy Vincent vinc...@wfu.edu | un...@wrddo.att.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am returning this otherwise good typing paper to you because someone
has printed gibberish all over it and put your name at the top."
-English Professor, Ohio University
Jenna C. Thomas-McKie
>[snippety]
>> Such checkers are very handy if you are not an English major and do not
>> have access to a professional proofreader or staff editor.
>[snip]
>This sentiment drives me nuts! Look, if you are college-educated and a
>native English speaker then you _should be able to construct a
>gramatically correct sentence.
I'd say that if you graduated high school and are a native English speaker,
then you should be able to construct a grammatically correct sentence.
>English majors _do _not necessarily study grammar, sentence structure, and
>mechanics of English.
Absolutely. In fact, I graduated with a BA in English, and while in
college, did not study grammar, sentence structure, or the mechanics of
English AT ALL. My high school did the job right, and I got to skip ENG101
and 102, where the basics were covered. I jumped right into studying
literature. And the few writing classes that I took focused on the details
of writing specific kinds of literature (poetry vs. grant writing), but
I did not study the "basics," because it was assumed that I knew them - or
I would not have met the prerequisites of ENG101 and 102, which were
required core classes for everyone.
>Grammar checkers _may help (I hate them). But you would be better served
>to pick up a copy of The Elements of Style and read it from cover to
>cover. Then write and learn to revise your writing. This will let all of
>those English majors go off and talk about postmodernism, instead of
>cleaning up your messes.
Hear, hear!! I also hate grammar checkers. I've used a couple, just to
test them out, and never once did I get any useful advice/critique from any
of them. Especially aggravating were the ones that had only ONE set of
rules to go by, and constantly told me my writing style was too "academic."
Well, duh, it's a senior-level term paper.... Or the checker told me my
style was too informal and simplistic. Well, duh, it was the manuscript for
a children's book.
Jenna
jth...@admin.ac.edu
Alexander von Thorn
> Grammar checkers _may help (I hate them). But you would be better served
> to pick up a copy of The Elements of Style and read it from cover to
> cover. Then write and learn to revise your writing. This will let all of
> those English majors go off and talk about postmodernism, instead of
> cleaning up your messes.
Why do you assume English majors know anything about writing? <g> Knowing
how to build something is not the same as knowing how to admire its
artistic qualities. For example, you wouldn't want a landscape painter to
be the one designing the bridge you want to drive on. Same principle
applies.
--
Copyright 1995 Alexander von Thorn, (416) 608-7464
http://www.io.org/~vonthorn/overview.html
Manager, The Worldhouse (Toronto's specialty game store)
Toronto Trek 9 * Mensa Annual Gathering in Canada '95
Bradley E. Wohlenberg
: Zi...@aol.com (Hound of Cullen) writes:
: >English majors _do _not necessarily study grammar, sentence structure, and
: >mechanics of English.
: Absolutely. In fact, I graduated with a BA in English, and while in
: college, did not study grammar, sentence structure, or the mechanics of
: English AT ALL. My high school did the job right, and I got to skip ENG101
: and 102, where the basics were covered. I jumped right into studying
: literature. And the few writing classes that I took focused on the details
: of writing specific kinds of literature (poetry vs. grant writing), but
: I did not study the "basics," because it was assumed that I knew them - or
: I would not have met the prerequisites of ENG101 and 102, which were
: required core classes for everyone.
I, as an English Major, also agree. In any of my writing classes, if
there was a grammatical error, it did not even affect the grade. My prof
once told me that he assumed the grammar checker didn't pick up the
mistake. That is a bit too far, but you get the idea. College is not
for grammar, it's for the literature aspects of English.
: Hear, hear!! I also hate grammar checkers. I've used a couple, just to
: test them out, and never once did I get any useful advice/critique from any
: of them. Especially aggravating were the ones that had only ONE set of
: rules to go by, and constantly told me my writing style was too "academic."
: Well, duh, it's a senior-level term paper.... Or the checker told me my
: style was too informal and simplistic. Well, duh, it was the manuscript for
: a children's book.
I can't stand them either. They've actually caused me to second guess my
grammar, and once I looked it up, I found that my original construction
was correct. I say the best grammar checker is you.
Jennifer
Tshen
: Alexander von Thorn (vont...@io.org) wrote:
: : Why do you assume English majors know anything about writing? <g> Knowing
: : how to build something is not the same as knowing how to admire its
: : artistic qualities. For example, you wouldn't want a landscape painter to
: : be the one designing the bridge you want to drive on. Same principle
: : applies.
: Glad I saw that "<g>" at the last minute.
As a former English major, I have to agree with Alex. The curriculum I was
presented with gave no specific instruction on how to write well. We were
to study Great Writers' Works (tm) so as to understand the social history
of the period, man's inhumanity to man [sic], which bits of symbolism the
prof thought were really keen, but we were taught nothing on how to string
a few sentences together without sounding like a semi-literate moron. One
could argue that the excessive number of papers we had to write should
have taught us something of writing's craft, but alas no. Most papers were
exercises in proving to the prof that (a) you were paying attention in
class, not sleeping, and (b) all the things the prof said were brilliant
and insightful. I credit *none* of my skill as a writer to my English
degree--my B.A. in B.S.--but rather to the personal study I did into the
theory and practice of writing. An English major is a great way to learn
the skills of writing for no other reason than it gives you lots of free
time to write between term papers.
Charlie J Church
>> : I'm writing a novel that I plan to publish and package myself, so the
>> : grammar needs to be 100% correct. What's the best and most thorough
>> : grammar checking program out there? And will it correct this message
>> : that I just wrote? I'm using Word for Windows 6.0.
> I'm using WordPerfect 6.1. This is one ass kicking great word processor with
>spell checker, thesaurus, and grammatech. I highly recommend it!
Charlie says:
The best grammar checker is the one that resides between the ears of
of a man and that mind well trained in grammar. All others are a
futile excerise in computer programming.
Thomas Disque
Granted, but you are not omnipotent. If you do any writing at all, you
know that you can stare at a page for an hour and not see the fatal flaw
that a casual observer can spot in 20 seconds. What's wrong with using
both mind and machine? Why does it have to be one or the other?
Here's how a grammar checker might have helped:
|> The best grammar checker is the one that resides between the ears of
|> of a man and that mind well trained in grammar. All others are a
^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SEXIST? DEPENDENT; SHOULD BE INDEPENDENT
|> futile excerise in computer programming.
^^^^^^^^
MISSPELLED
Tom Disque
"My opinions, not SAS Institute's"
Martha Conway
>One
>could argue that the excessive number of papers we had to write should
>have taught us something of writing's craft, but alas no. Most papers were
>exercises in proving to the prof that (a) you were paying attention in
>class, not sleeping, and (b) all the things the prof said were brilliant
>and insightful. I credit *none* of my skill as a writer to my English
>degree--my B.A. in B.S.--but rather to the personal study I did
You probably learned more than you think you did. It is my opinion you
learn an enormous amount by doing -- i.e., writing. Thinking is also a
great skill, which many have yet to exercise.
Martha Conway
con...@ced.berkeley.edu
Reid Goldsborough
: Charlie says:
: The best grammar checker is the one that resides between the ears of
: of a man and that mind well trained in grammar. All others are a
: futile excerise in computer programming.
~~~~~~~~
Charlie make booboo in spelling. Maybe Charlie also sometime make booboo
in grammar? Spell checker catch many spell mistakes. Grammar checker
catch many grammar mistakes. Grammar checker not perfect, like peoples.
But grammar checker be good tool if used judiciously.
Reid Goldsborough~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~reid...@netaxs.com
Computer columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer
Author of the book Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Charles Good
I've noticed that many schools no longer use the terms, English
or Literature; it's called Language or Language Arts.
Can someone explain why this changed?
Is it just a new way of referring to the courses or did the curriculum
significantly change?
Hound of Cullen
I know that "English" has been dropped when a multicultural approach to
lit. is being taken (Lit in English instead of English Lit.) It includes
translations of renowned authors from non-English speaking cultures
(Marques and Borges are popular, as is Oe, now that he has won the Nobel
prize). This is on a collegiate level.
"Language Arts" always stumped me, too. I don't know the origin of that
term, nor why it has become the preferred way of referring to the study of
Lit. & English in secondary schools. Anyone else know?
Hound (wouldn't "BA in Language Arts" sound funny?) of Cullen
Hound of Cullen
vont...@io.org (Alexander von Thorn) wrote:
> In article <Zisbo-28049...@pziselberger.bbn.com>, Zi...@aol.com
> (Hound of Cullen) wrote:
[why repeat myself?]
And AvT sayeth:
> Why do you assume English majors know anything about writing? <g> Knowing
> how to build something is not the same as knowing how to admire its
> artistic qualities. For example, you wouldn't want a landscape painter to
> be the one designing the bridge you want to drive on. Same principle
> applies.
I suppose what I am assuming is that _anyone in college should know
something about writing. If you recall from go...@aur.alcatel.com's post
on grammar checkers, he spoke of "writing on a 6th grade level." If you
are in college (or a college grad) you _should be able to write on a sixth
grade level. I try to write on a higher level, as do many (I shoul say
most) of the denizens of Misc.Writing. _That is where the artistry comes
in.
What annoyed me was his immediate assumption that I (as an
editor/proofreader/former English major) have nothing better to do with my
time than proofread something he is too lazy to check himself. He is the
one who should check his 6th-grade level writing, not me, I'm too busy
reading something more interesting (or writing something more
interesting).
Hound
NME58
touched on grammar. it's a *literature* degree, fergawdsake.
agree with the grammar checker complaints....but disagree with the person
who recommended _Elements of Style_. while that book has some good
writing advice, it's highly over-recommended as some sort of bible for all
writing questions (look at it again...it's isn't that comprehensive!)
instead, get a *grammar* book -- one that i like and use is _Errors in
English_ by Harry Shaw.
(and no dissing my writing/punctuation...i'm just spouting off here!)
Diane Wms
Technical Writing and Editing and I don't know why they don't just call it
an MA in Technical Writing! But, of course it makes sense to base it in
the English or Journalism departments.
Diane Williams
"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." --Emerson
THERES...@delphi.com
> I've noticed that many schools no longer use the terms, English
> or Literature; it's called Language or Language Arts.
> Can someone explain why this changed?
> Is it just a new way of referring to the courses or did the curriculum
> significantly change?
Gee. Maybe I should send back my sheepskins so they can change the BA in
English to Language, and the BA in Renaissance Literature to Renaissance
Language Arts.
Not. :) Somehow I just can't see the correlation. I don't have a degree in
Language; it's in English. And I don't have a degree in Language Arts; it's
Renaissance Literature. Maybe someone can explain to *me* this new-fangled
designation as well.
Theresa Grant
Editors are people, too!
Rainbow V 1.15.2 for Delphi - Registered
Wendy Chatley Green
> > I've noticed that many schools no longer use the terms, English
> > or Literature; it's called Language or Language Arts.
> > Can someone explain why this changed?
A cynical answer--"Language Arts" has fewer syllables than
"Literature." Using the phrase makes it easier for the graduate to read
the diploma.
It also sounds less snooty. We must not appear snooty in these
egalitarian times (oops, I meant "times when all are the same.")
Wendy (holding degrees in Computer Systems)
Chatley (and Latin, but writing in English) Green
wcg...@cris.com
Scott Elyard
Thorn, vont...@io.org writes:
>Why do you assume English majors know anything about writing? <g> Knowing
>how to build something is not the same as knowing how to admire its
>artistic qualities. For example, you wouldn't want a landscape painter to
>be the one designing the bridge you want to drive on. Same principle
>applies.
>
If Frank Lloyd Wright were a landscape painter, I'd have no problems
whatsoever with his designing a bridge.
Scott Elyard
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{ .Sigs of famous literary characters:
{ Third Stage Guild Navigator (From *Dune*):
{
{ "This sure doesn't look like Pismo Beach."
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~
marion agnew
wrote:
> I am thinking of pursuing an MA in English with a concentration in
> Technical Writing and Editing and I don't know why they don't just call it
> an MA in Technical Writing! But, of course it makes sense to base it in
> the English or Journalism departments.
>
Some places offer technical writing degrees through science or engineering
departments (University of Washington is famous for this). I graduated
(finally) from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock with an M.A. in
Technical and Expository Writing, which was awarded by the English
Department. BUT since then, the English Department has split into the
English Department (which they were contemplating renaming the Literature
Department) and the Writing Department (no kidding). The school also has a
journalism school, which isn't even part of the College of Arts and
Sciences.
Turf battles? You bet. I always wondered what was happening to the poor
students, who just want to learn some writing stuff and get a degree.
Marion
mag...@lanl.gov
Vance Maverick
> If Frank Lloyd Wright were a landscape painter, I'd have no problems
> whatsoever with his designing a bridge.
What in the world do you mean? He was a brilliant architect, and
*even so* his buildings were famously ill-constructed. (Apocryphal
story: outraged client calls Wright to complain that the roof leaks.
Wright: "That's how you know it's a roof!") So you say that if his
training had inclined him *even further* to beauty over function,
you'd dare to drive across a bridge he built?
Vance
Martha Conway
>If Frank Lloyd Wright were a landscape painter, I'd have no problems
>whatsoever with his designing a bridge.
But how would you feel if he designed your bridgework?
It might be beautiful, but you'll never eat toffee.
Martha Conway
con...@ced.berkeley.edu
Dale J. Hubbard
>
>i have a BA *and* MA in English and never had any classes that even
>touched on grammar. it's a *literature* degree, fergawdsake.
Can this be true? Is it possible in the USA to get an MA in English without
studying grammar? I cannot believe this would be achievable in the UK. Any
comments from Brit BA/MAs?
M Barnard
vont...@io.org says...
>
>In article <3o2uj6$s...@eis.wfunet.wfu.edu>, vinc...@wfu.edu (Kathy
>Vincent) wrote:
>
>> I don't see your principle applying. An engineer studies bridge
>> construction, learns the principles of building a good bridge,
>I still feel that writing is to English (as an academic subject) as
>engineering is to art appreciation. Very different disciplines. What a
>writer sees as important in a piece of writing (anyone's, not just their
>own) is different from what a literary critic sees.
>
>Many English majors do study the actual writing end of things. But it's
>not required, and I don't think a majority of them do.
>
And my too sense worth.
As a part-time, mature student (watch it!), almost-finished-the-
damn-thing English Major at a fairly large University which shall remain
visible to Alex every time he looks out his window at work, I declare you
both correct.
It is possible, but difficult, for English majors to study the craft of
writing excellent prose, poetry or plays for credit. It is much easier
to study the reading and dissection of the above.
Reading excellent prose, poetry and plays has helped my writing
immeasurably by giving me decent standards. Of course, I had to go back
to school to force myself to read the good stuff. Nobody has to.
The third-year literary criticism course that I took ruined me for
reading and writing for several months. I couldn't read anything heavier
than light sci-fi, comedy and easy detective novels. I didn't write
anything for four months. It's possible that this was a period of
assimilation, and that my writing and reading have been improved
immeasurably by exposure to the academic in-fighting and attacks-on-
predecessors-to-ensure-tenure in the LitCrit world, but my premise
remains: academic literary criticism today has nothing to do with
learning to write better.
Just to throw another leg over the fence, the next course I'll be taking
will probably be a third-year course called Creative Writing. The course
is balloted, with students wishing to enroll required to provide samples
of their work for evaluation of suitability to the course. 1000 words a
week are required and evaluated, both by the teacher and by other
students. Will it teach me to be a better writer? Any focussed
criticism will help a writer. Will I have to beat off people who think
that Stanley Fish has something useful to say about my lack of text?
Sure, but a third of any group criticism is garbage. At least I have the
tools to know which third in this setting. It also gets me another
credit towards finishing.
Is university making me a better writer? Unequivocally yes. Does it
make everyone better writers? Unequivocally no. Does university help
everyone that wants to be a writer? Probably not, but it is one way,
especially if, like me, they are lazy readers with little reading outside
of one of the pulp genres, and they respond well to the structure of
academics.
M
Alexander von Thorn
> I don't see your principle applying. An engineer studies bridge
> construction, learns the principles of building a good bridge,
> goes out and builds a bridge, and recognizes a well-designed bridge
> when s/he sees one. THAT's the principle I'd apply here, not the
> landscape painter / bridge builder analogy.
I still feel that writing is to English (as an academic subject) as
engineering is to art appreciation. Very different disciplines. What a
writer sees as important in a piece of writing (anyone's, not just their
own) is different from what a literary critic sees.
Many English majors do study the actual writing end of things. But it's
not required, and I don't think a majority of them do.
--
Dave Gardner
> In article <3o8a81$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> nm...@aol.com writes:
> >
> >i have a BA *and* MA in English and never had any classes that even
> >touched on grammar. it's a *literature* degree, fergawdsake.
>
> Can this be true? Is it possible in the USA to get an MA in English without
> studying grammar?
YUP.
m...@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
>
> > > I've noticed that many schools no longer use the terms, English
> > > or Literature; it's called Language or Language Arts.
> > > Can someone explain why this changed?
>
> A cynical answer--"Language Arts" has fewer syllables than
> "Literature." Using the phrase makes it easier for the graduate to read
> the diploma.
> It also sounds less snooty. We must not appear snooty in these
> egalitarian times (oops, I meant "times when all are the same.")
Gee, just like Lewis's _Screwtape Proposes a Toast_, huh?
Let's also hear what The Great Quux has to say on the matter:
[g] Finally, let's hear it for quantum mechanics, who service
small automobiles for today's nuclear family.
Pauli and Heisenberg
Offer two rules for con-
Fused aristocracies,
Quantum domains:
"Egalitarian
Nonexclusivity
Must be forbidden"; "Un-
Certainty reigns."
Latin, did you say?
[a] When in Canada, do as the Canadans do...
Quaxiti quuxiti, Quaxity quuxity,
Remus et Romulus Remus and Romulus,
Gemini fratres a Wolf-nourished brothers, were
Lupa aluntur. Twins, so they say.
Romulus inquit: non Romulus patiently
Aedificabitur Founded a city; as
Paucis diebus, sed He said, "Rome will not be
Roma nascetur. Built in a day."
--
(This man's opinions are his own.)
From mole-end Mark Terribile
m...@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
(Training and consulting in C, C++, UNIX, etc.)
Lisa Solod
: In article <3o8a81$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> nm...@aol.com writes:
: >
: >i have a BA *and* MA in English and never had any classes that even
: >touched on grammar. it's a *literature* degree, fergawdsake.
: Can this be true? Is it possible in the USA to get an MA in English without
: studying grammar? I cannot believe this would be achievable in the UK. Any
: comments from Brit BA/MAs?
: Dale
: dhub...@auto.pc.my
You're supposed to learn grammar before you go to college, for pete's
sake. ALthough I know kids don't because I taught a college writing
course and no one could put together a proper English sentence even
though the class was _supposed_ to be for "advanced" writers. . . but
really! one should be taught basic grammar in high school and then one's
grammar should be corrected when one writes papers for lit classes. But
teaching grammar on a college level seems. . .well, seems like a real
waste of time to me.
William S. Lovell
. . . It is my opinion you learn an enormous amount by doing -- i.e.,
writing. Thinking is also a great skill, which many have yet to exercise.
Writing is the process of translating a chain of thought into symbolic form.
What comes out at the end depends upon (1) the quality of the chain of
thought to begin with; and (2) the skill of the translator. The latter skill
involves issues of style, aesthetics, and the like, and discussions of
writing tend to emphasize (2) above rather than (1) -- which basically
means to elevate form over substance. This is not to say that form is
not important, but especially in a news group such as this one, the
importance of having something worthwhile to say in the first place
may need more consideration.
Bill (I don't write everything for pay) Lovell
William S. Lovell
>From: THERES...@delphi.com
>Subject: What English Majors do
>Date: 4 May 1995 10:16:30 GMT
> > I've noticed that many schools no longer use the terms, English
> > or Literature; it's called Language or Language Arts.
> > Can someone explain why this changed?
> > Is it just a new way of referring to the courses or did the curriculum
> > significantly change?
> > .
All law schools since Jefferson probably used to give the LLB degree; in the
late sixties or thereabouts some school created the J.D. -- Juris Doctor (or
Doctorus or whatever). Soon all other law schools jumped aboard. Has the
subject matter of the law changed? Has legal education got better because
of the change? Does anyone give a rip?
Bill (I don't have a shingle) Lovell
mfinley
>
>In article 163...@auto.pc.my, dhub...@auto.pc.my (Dale J. Hubbard) writes:
>> >
>> >i have a BA *and* MA in English and never had any classes that even
>> >touched on grammar. it's a *literature* degree, fergawdsake.
>>
>> Can this be true? Is it possible in the USA to get an MA in English without
>> studying grammar?
>
>
>
>
>
Oddly, the easiest way to avoid learning grammar is to major in creative writing.
>>I cannot believe this would be achievable in the UK. Any
>> comments from Brit BA/MAs?
>>
>> Dale
>> dhub...@auto.pc.my
>
>
>
>
>
Mike Finley
St. Paul, Minnesota
Elizabeth A. Hendricks
: In article <3o6e5e$8...@aurns1.aur.alcatel.com>, go...@aur.alcatel.com wrote:
: > I've noticed that many schools no longer use the terms, English
: I know that "English" has been dropped when a multicultural approach to
: lit. is being taken (Lit in English instead of English Lit.) It includes
<snip>
: prize). This is on a collegiate level.
Makes sense. It always seemed funny to me to call a class "English"
when the authors being studied were Tolstoi and Flaubert. (Funny, no one
ever talked about a "multicultural approach" when those authors were
included in that Lit class.)
: "Language Arts" always stumped me, too. I don't know the origin of that
: term, nor why it has become the preferred way of referring to the study of
: Lit. & English in secondary schools. Anyone else know?
I don't know, but that's what they called it in my elementary and junior
high schools 20+ years ago, so it's not that new a term. I figured it was
an umbrella term, like Social Studies, to cover more subjects than might
have been adequately covered by "English."
Meg Wilson
>>> Can this be true? Is it possible in the USA to get an MA in English without
>>> studying grammar?
>>YUP.
>Oddly, the easiest way to avoid learning grammar is to major in creative writing.
It is also possible to go through a degree program in mathematics and
not take a course in arithmetic. I guess I don't see the problem here.
-Meg
Kathy Vincent
: Various people write:
: >>YUP.
I don't either, really. By the time I hit college, I already had
a very solid foundation in grammar. As someone else said, gee,
I hope people already know that stuff by the time they get to
college.
--
Kathy Vincent
vinc...@wfu.edu | un...@wrddo.att.com
David Luoto
lso...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Lisa Solod) wrote:
> You're supposed to learn grammar before you go to college, for pete's
> sake. ALthough I know kids don't because I taught a college writing
> course and no one could put together a proper English sentence even
> though the class was _supposed_ to be for "advanced" writers. . . but
> really! one should be taught basic grammar in high school and then one's
> grammar should be corrected when one writes papers for lit classes. But
> teaching grammar on a college level seems. . .well, seems like a real
> waste of time to me.
I was taught grammar in high school. I think I forgot it immediately
because it wasn't of any use to me. I didn't really learn grammar until I
studied a foreign language (in college).
Alexander von Thorn
(Hound of Cullen) wrote:
I was attempting a wry comment; I certainly wasn't arguing in favor of
laziness in writing.
I've seen people with Ph.D.'s who can't construct a coherent sentence.
(The *really* scary thing is I've had to clean up work for "name" writers
with several books to their name. They get by on coolness and
connections.)
Kathy Vincent
: I was taught grammar in high school. I think I forgot it immediately
: because it wasn't of any use to me. I didn't really learn grammar until I
: studied a foreign language (in college).
Now there's a good point: An excellent reason for studying
foreign languages -- at any time. Although I didn't forget
grammar when I was taught it in high school, I did learn
a heck of a lot about English grammar by studying Latin
and French. And maybe I learned more about English by
studying Latin and French than I did by studying English.
Hard to say. I started Latin in 9th grade and took five
years of it, so that pretty much overlays any studying
in high school of English grammar. (Though THE most
rigorous -- and memorable and valuable -- studying
of English grammar for me was 7th and 8th grade.)
Things like the subjunctive and even passive voice
that are somewhat elusive in English stand out much
more clearly in Latin, say, because of the inflection
of the verbs. [Fred? Someone? Right word?]
Studying foreign languages reinforced my knowledge of
English.
Having more than one example of something makes it more
clear what, exactly, that something is and how it works.
Much as, say, the concept of "red" may become clearer
if you have not only the example of a red apple
but also the example of a red jacket, a red ball, a
red wagon, a red shoe a red sunset, red pigment, etc.
--
Kate Vincent
vinc...@wfu.edu | un...@wrddo.att.com
Rheal Nadeau
Kathy Vincent <vinc...@wfu.edu> wrote:
]David Luoto (dlu...@ea.com) wrote:
]: I was taught grammar in high school. I think I forgot it immediately
]: because it wasn't of any use to me. I didn't really learn grammar until I
]: studied a foreign language (in college).
]
]Now there's a good point: An excellent reason for studying
]foreign languages -- at any time. Although I didn't forget
]grammar when I was taught it in high school, I did learn
]a heck of a lot about English grammar by studying Latin
]and French. And maybe I learned more about English by
]studying Latin and French than I did by studying English.
See previous post for the rest . . .
I have a fabulous advantage, as a writer - I learned two languages as a
child, French and English.
To state it briefly: no one can learn botany by looking at one
flower. And no one can truly understand language after learning only
one.
A language is a window unto the world. The more windows we look
through, however, the better we'll learn to see.
.....Rheal
Elizabeth A. Hendricks
: I don't either, really. By the time I hit college, I already had
: a very solid foundation in grammar. As someone else said, gee,
: I hope people already know that stuff by the time they get to
: college.
In the public schools I attended in the '60s and '70s, we were never
actually taught grammar. (My husband went to Catholic school during the
same years and says he was never taught grammar either.) Most of what I
know about grammar I learned by studying foreign languages. I had picked
up most of it by college, but in the beginning French class I took, the
teacher had to review English grammar before he taught French grammar
because most of the students were completely lost when he started talking
about things like participles and direct and indirect objects (and in some
cases, pronouns and adverbs!). This was at a college where the majority
of the students had graduated from private/prep schools and had taken AP
English courses (something not available at my high school).
I don't understand why grammar was so neglected. A couple of my English
teachers in high school gave us spontaneous mini-lessons when they grew
tired of seeing the same mistake all the time. But I got the idea at the
time that the national body that decided what English teachers should
teach had decided that there was no need to teach grammar. I don't know
who I might have heard that from, but it never made sense to me.
Hound of Cullen
vont...@io.org (Alexander von Thorn) wrote:
>
> I was attempting a wry comment; I certainly wasn't arguing in favor of
> laziness in writing.
>
> I've seen people with Ph.D.'s who can't construct a coherent sentence.
> (The *really* scary thing is I've had to clean up work for "name" writers
> with several books to their name. They get by on coolness and
> connections.)
'scuse me for snapping. It is just a peeve of mine. Laziness in your
chosen craft is a big sin (as I see it). If you can't take it serioiusly,
then get out and leave it to those of us who do.
("You" here, does not mean Mr. von Thorn. He is hardly lazy. It is the
unwashed mass I refer to.)
Hound
Tim Hunt
That's why elementary school used to be called "grammar school," right? ; ))
> In article <3ojdn0$f...@eis.wfunet.wfu.edu> Kathy Vincent writes:
> Meg Wilson (wil...@crl.ucsd.edu) wrote:
> : Various people write:
>
> : >>> Can this be true? Is it possible in the USA to get
> : >>> an MA in English without studying grammar?
>
> : >>YUP.
>
> : >Oddly, the easiest way to avoid learning grammar is
> : >to major in creative writing.
>
>
> : It is also possible to go through a degree program in mathematics and
> : not take a course in arithmetic. I guess I don't see the problem here.
>
>
> I don't either, really. By the time I hit college, I already had
> a very solid foundation in grammar. As someone else said, gee,
> I hope people already know that stuff by the time they get to
> college.
>
> --
> Kathy Vincent
> vinc...@wfu.edu | un...@wrddo.att.com
> >
"It takes less time to do a thing right than it does to explain why you
did it wrong." - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
"Some call me....Tiiimmmmm!" Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Susan Dauber
Lisa Solod <lso...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu> wrote:
>I have always believed fervently that being a good writer depends a lot
>on being a good reader.
Oh, how I wish more beginning writers would listen to this advice. It
bears repeating:
>I have always believed fervently that being a good writer depends a lot
>on being a good reader.
And again:
>a good reader
--
-John
jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu -- short .sig, std. disclaimer -- John Humpal
Lisa Solod
prose, beautiful prose, meaningful prose, prose that says something,
without first having read a lot of the stuff. ThTh
is one advantage to
both going to school, getting an "English" (or Literature) degree and
working hard to do one's best. I was a working journalist for ten years:
the work I did in economics, history, political science, literature of
all kinds, science, etc., made me a better reporter and writer. Now that
I write fiction full time, my readings past, present and future, make me
a better writer. I don't copy, I learn. I have a wide breadth of
experience and it makes my writing more interesting. It seems clear and
obvious to me that a good education can only inform one's work and that
reading and writing constitute two parts of a writer's work.
Charlene Wolff Char
>I am thinking of pursuing an MA in English with a concentration in
>Technical Writing and Editing and I don't know why they don't just call it
>an MA in Technical Writing! But, of course it makes sense to base it in
>the English or Journalism departments.
Technical Communications, Network Data Processing