April 1, 2014

Ok ok oK, but can you be a bit Reasonable, Ginger?

When i sat at my desk and began to write this LL post, first i thought if i should answer the questions a) whether not we really need a postgraduate degree in English in order to our writings to be proper  and b) in which areas we have the major challenges if we still want to write a post whereas there is so many academic readers and huge regular  world  wide  readers than Google stats can find out,  then i thought 'no--the answer is just the common sense knowledge or a specific situation from which we have to express our opinions and so is not so important or would be of too personification if we do', and then i looked around to see if anything had have been left over for analyses, but then I found something else to be interesting--the grammar checkers. 

So I gave it a try by testing just this above paragraph in order to see where it dangles, splices, and emphasizes in their programs but left all the other discussions about like a) the discussion about the linguistic reasoning behind our tenses of the atelic temporality such as like here in the para above like began (of past),  and thought (of past), thought then (of posterior-past), then looked around (of posterior to posterior-past), and found (of post-posterior to posterior-past) that have linguistically distinguishable telic temporal frames (occurrences of punctual start and end points in different times)  than our grammatical time frames (the conceptual time frames logic between a speaker and listener) and b) the discussion about how we correctly modify the punctual telicity of many occurrences by our one shot adverb. 

Now I am almost enough for a half page, but should I be political or linguistical further? With of theses two ads about grammar checkers, I think, it is done enough without any heavy burden to readers of lingua franca:               
Getting your grammar right matters! 
In the online as well as the offline world, it is important to write without making silly grammar mistakes, English syntax errors or punctuation mistakes. We all know how communication is a key skill for success. For example, in the corporate world it is hard to get a job without good written communication skills, even if the candidate excels in his or her field. In the academic world, error-free English writing is strongly correlated with achieving better results. In the online world, bloggers need to write grammatically correct and fluent texts to make sure that the message they are trying to convey is properly reaching their audience. If you have an online service, then proper, error-free content is crucial. The bottom line is, a grammar check before you submit your writing could make the difference between success and failure.
No more grammar mistakes: Check grammar with Ginger!
The Ginger Grammar Checker corrects a vast range of grammar use mistakes. Most grammar corrector tools claiming to perform a grammar check based on English grammar rules are not able to identify the majority of grammar errors; therefore many of these common writing errors are overlooked. In many cases, these free online grammar checkers flag mistakes but do not suggest any corrections. Ginger uses groundbreaking technology to detect grammar and spelling errors in sentences and to correct them with unmatched accuracy. From singular vs plural errors to the most sophisticated sentence or tense usage errors, Ginger picks up on mistakes and corrects them. Grammar checking has never been easier and faster. With a single click multiple mistakes are corrected. Your mistakes will no longer be overlooked with Ginger Software’s Grammar Checker.
However, Ginger is not someone whom I can go with, at least as to what the current version is capable of, but a program like Paperrater, Eassyrater, Whitesmoke, or Languagetool seems to be alright for many occasions. But since there is also always potential for errors, or since there is very little chance for not having errors if we encounter the complications, it is that reason why I try to be simple and always open in my approaches if it comes to writing a post for a language blog. 

Also, since our understanding of grammatical patterns is extremely sophisticated, despite the fact that few of us can actually cite the rules by which the patterns work, it is then also understandable or understandable that it is not easy for programmers to validate their grammar checkers without actually failing to spot errors and incorrectly flagging correct texts as erroneous. 

One of the other thing that worthy of mention from last few weeks of worlds of  language blogs is the writers' distinguishable approaches on the favoritism toward 'English and Amenglish' and 'literary English and high English'. And something in particular to mention with this regard, at least why something have often been emphasized semantically or grammatically is concerned, is perhaps the likely conceptual bias that we have against our intuitions for our reference books (or dictionaries). At the same time, we can ask ourselves the same defense question 'why not or why everyone shod be the c[C]onservatives for a language blog'. For our creative writings, we add so many ad hoc grammatical conventions indeed.           


  1. Steffen Baldacci6/4/14 13:14

    What is purpose of the Italicizing the words ‘ad hoc’ and ‘lingua franca’ here? They no longer require the italic convention. They are just anglicized form just as any other, even if they haven’t undergone for any phonetical, morphological, or syllabical forms of the anglicization. For the modern generation, who live with computer uses, the meaning of ‘ad hoc’ is easy to grasp without knowing the Latin language. The Chicago Style for pure foreign words in formal writings is that if foreign words have become sufficiently anglicized to be listed in a good English dictionary, they should not be underlined or italicized. However, the Wikipedia, a mainstream etiquette of our formal witting conventions, still italicizes the word ‘ad hoc’ but not the word ‘lingua franca’ for some reasons.

    1. Lavin Smart7/4/14 10:54

      They are no longer required italicizing, I would say. But their synonyms are neither the alternatives nor the simple answers to it. All the comments on the attached link, however, may be irrelevant to this, or totally irrelevant as to our grammatical and stylistic correct wording choices for a certain thing. However, it does seem to conceal reasonable logics here and there that we need to look into.

    2. Anonymous8/4/14 10:19

      A reply to the question posted in the Wikipedia may be problematic since it is one of those exceptional cases to which we don't like its grammar. We got rid of all the old grammatical case system and we are doing pretty good and much more without it. We have the very strict order system instead. Languages of case system have the flexibility to change their word orders a bit and can still provide the correct reading, for example, 'x saw y' and 'y saw x' can be identifiable from their case morphology as to who saw whom. But in English it is the word orders that provide a correct reading. We may one time get rid of all the case morphology, but as of today, the accusative case is our object and predicative noun case in the deep structure level grammatical marking, though it sounds a bit strange sometimes.

      The same thing is for the italic conventions. We have so many Latin 'ad' and 'de' compounds, yes, but can't tell the exact reason why something like 'de facto' or 'ad hoc' aren't in the same way. It is time to strait up and put together as 'adhoc',I would say.

    3. Steffen Baldacci13/4/14 12:36

      Just on the grammatical conventions discussed recently and on this supporting literature , is it then a mistaken concept for 'predicative noun' or 'predicative nominal'?

      When we are talking about predicative complements, we are talking about the concepts of predicative noun, predicative adjective, and predicative adverb--not about their grammatical case. The nominative case affixation to a predicative noun or predicative adjective or predicative adverb is just fine in English. It does seem a bit illogical.

    4. Peter Hyams13/4/14 12:57

      WP comments make sense. It is the nominative case