Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Ask your doctor if the Halfbakery is right for you.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


         

Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

Derivations spellchecking option

so that the spellchecker will accept plurals of a new word you have 'taught' it
  (+6, -2)
(+6, -2)
  [vote for,
against]

When writing documents I have the option turned on where as I write, it will put red underline on words which it doesn't recognise. This is sometimes annoying, but usually helpful, in my opinion. However, when a document involves new technical terms or a noun generated from a locational or personal pronoun, it becomes irritating to have to tell the spellchecker that a number of different appearances of pretty much the same word (especially for something as simple as the capitalisation of the first letter or pluralisation!) are each acceptable. For example, I am writing a document about an aquifer: some layers in it are [named] *Breccia*, the general rock term is *breccia*. This means that there are *clasts* in it, I also describe *clast* type, how extensively it was *brecciated*, what *facies* it represents, and that some of it is *detrital* and it was all laid down in a *graben*.
ok, so most of those words shouldn't be expected to come up in the standard dictionary. But taking 'breccia' as an example, wouldn't it be desirable to come across the first appearance of that word, tell the spellchecker it's ok and add it to the dictionary, and then be given a few more options to extend the dictionary. I was thinking of something like:

"Breccia" This word is not recognised.
1. Change to:[no similar word found]?
2. Ignore
3. Add to dictionary [click]
{next screen}
Breccia. You have added this word. Are there any other forms of it?
1. No
2. Yes [click]
3. I'll do this later
{next screen}
Is this word primarily a noun[click], verb[ ], adjective[ ],other[ ]
What other forms does it have, input them here:
noun[breccia]
pronoun[......]
verb[to brecciate]
adverb[......]
adjective[brecciated]
others[...... , ...... ]
If a noun, how is it pluralised:
pl. noun[breccias]

There could also be an option to add it as a new construction of an already recognised word - e.g. my word 'detrital' is an adjective related to the word 'detritus', but it's not common enough to be in the dictionary. If the two were linked, firstly the dictionary would be one step closer to intelligent and context-based, and secondly we might be able to scan for over-use or over-reliance on a small number of terms in a large text, and then invoke the thesaurus.

other thoughts:
(a) I have long wished that word-processing programs' dictionaries made some attempt at definitions instead of just being spelling matchers, but this is probably unrealistic for size issues. instead, the thesaurus link is about the best we can do. So, when teaching the program your new word, you should be able to link it to other words, building up little cross-linked families of terms: detrital->detritus->talus->scree.
(b)new abomination words should not be excluded from this. Last week I heard (and cringed!) "incentivise".
"incentivise" This word is not recognised.
1. Change to:[incentive]?
2. Ignore
3. Add to dictionary [click]
{next screen}
incentivise You have added this word. Are there any other forms of it?
1. No
2. Yes [click]
3. I'll do this later
{next screen}
Is this word primarily a noun[ ], verb[click], adjective[ ],other[ ]
What other forms does it have, input them here:
noun[incentive]
pronoun[......]
verb[......]
adverb[......]
adjective[......]
others[...... , ...... ]
sappho, May 27 2002

[link]






       Way too complicated to be worth it. Surely it's easier just to write the other forms as and when you need them, then add them? Or get the program to give more options when it sees that the new word could be related to a word it already knows in a fairly proscribed way?
yamahito, May 27 2002
  

       Why not just link your spellchecker to britannica.com or a proprietary database of some sort? I'd get bored real fast having to teach my home computer words I already taught my work computer.
phoenix, May 27 2002
  

       [phoenix]: if you're using ms office, there's a file which keeps all the additions to your dictionary. You can change where it's kept, and share it with your work machine using something like the briefcase (personally I hate that, but it's very doable).
yamahito, May 27 2002
  

       I am my computer's administrativism -- I'll certain tell it all it needs to know.   

       I mean, I'll of a certain tell it all it needs to know, your honor.
reensure, May 27 2002
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle