Spell Checkers
Created | Updated Jan 19, 2004
I sometimes feel that if I could meet anyone in the entire world, just one person, I would choose to meet the sick, twisted grammarian whose expertise (and I use the word in the most derogatory and sarcastic way possible) was applied to the Spelling and Grammar Check facility on my personal Computer. Not out of respect you understand. I am genuinely amazed by this faceless individual’s unbelievably limited grasp of the English language.
I confess; I worry about programmers getting their sweaty, mouse-deadened fingers on our collective keyboard. I’m afraid that soon any illiterate imbecile with an IT qualification may be instructing us on the finer points of English grammar and usage. My fears came to a head recently when a certain well known computer-related company (which I shall not name) published their Encarta World English Dictionary (or whatever). Don’t get me wrong; I’m sure that a great many highly talented people worked on this project. Why, they probably even had a linguist or two involved at some point. My Problem with this dictionary is that it has been put together by the kind of people who gave us COBOL, BASIC, DOS and the illogical wonder that is PASCAL and that these people now have at least some control over our language.
When I grapple with a meaning or spelling, I automatically (and I don’t believe I’m alone here) call on the services of Captain Dictionary who speeds dutifully yet majestically from the shelf and swoops into my hand with a ready definition a, a touch of daring-do. And now we are blessed with a dictionary produced by people whose greatest contribution to the English language is the Spelling and Grammar Check facility on my personal computer. Wonderful. Soon we’ll he speaking fluent sixteen-bit hexadecimal double binary interface with an accent somewhere between Star Trek and Prozac.
Back to the point. I have great problems with my spell checker. Specifically, it appears to have little or no idea about acceptable in English usage. Immediately I engage this facility, I expect to be dazzled by ignorance and am seldom disappointed.
As part of my work, I was once required to compose a brief and basic introduction to law and the legislation which features heavily in our daily duties. I was deeply engaged in this enterprise when I foolishly typed the sentence, “Criminal prosecutions are brought by officials representing the state.” I concede, this a passive is sentence. However, my eccentric grammarian friend informs me that this construction is illiterate. Why? It wouldn’t say. In vain, I tried “Criminal prosecutions are brought by agents who act on behalf of the state,” and, “Criminal prosecutions are brought by agents acting on behalf of the state,” but these too were deemed unacceptable. If, just once, it were to offer me an explanation as to where my linguistic shortcomings lay, I would accept it graciously and indeed gratefully. Alas, it does not.
I decided to put it to the test. “David enjoys life in the fast lane,” I typed. It liked it, or at least did not protest. “Summer time and the living is easy,” I ventured and it was accepted. Either it likes Gershwin (although not his name, which is clearly mistyped) or my construction is sound. It even recognized and allowed a gerund, as it should. Neither is it a sin to wantonly split an infinitive, as far as I can tell. “This case clearly demonstrates the legal concept of causation.“ Once again, no problems. Why then should there be a problem with brining prosecutions?
And there you have it. Did you notice that? Brining prosecutions. It accepts “brining prosecutions.” And what, pray tell, does that mean? If, just once, I heard of a solicitor brining or threatening to brine(?) a prosecution against a third party, I should be delighted. Of course, to my knowledge, this has never happened.
Collin’s Concise English Dictionary defines brine as, “a solution of salt and water used for salting and pickling meats” or “The Sea or its waters.” It contains the word brine as a noun and only as a noun. The only ancillary formation, according to Collin’s, is the adjective brinish. My computer’s spell checker not only rejects the word “Collin’s”, but also the dictionary’s brinish offering.
“Prosecution,” on the other hand, is a reasonably common word (depending in which circles one moves). It is defined, again by the objectionable Collin’s, as “the act of prosecuting or the state of being prosecuted.” I would stick my neck out and say that, assuming brining is a word and means the process by which something is preserved in brine (or perhaps “brined?”), a prosecution is so intangible as to not lend itself terribly well to the brining process. And let’s face it, even after such a process, a prosecution would not, in my opinion, be anywhere near as wholesome or tasty a snack as those which are already available in the brine range.
However, if my computer spell checker is to be believed, and brined prosecutions are the snack of the future, transfer those shares now! Clearly, the days of the sardine are numbered…
I confess; I worry about programmers getting their sweaty, mouse-deadened fingers on our collective keyboard. I’m afraid that soon any illiterate imbecile with an IT qualification may be instructing us on the finer points of English grammar and usage. My fears came to a head recently when a certain well known computer-related company (which I shall not name) published their Encarta World English Dictionary (or whatever). Don’t get me wrong; I’m sure that a great many highly talented people worked on this project. Why, they probably even had a linguist or two involved at some point. My Problem with this dictionary is that it has been put together by the kind of people who gave us COBOL, BASIC, DOS and the illogical wonder that is PASCAL and that these people now have at least some control over our language.
When I grapple with a meaning or spelling, I automatically (and I don’t believe I’m alone here) call on the services of Captain Dictionary who speeds dutifully yet majestically from the shelf and swoops into my hand with a ready definition a, a touch of daring-do. And now we are blessed with a dictionary produced by people whose greatest contribution to the English language is the Spelling and Grammar Check facility on my personal computer. Wonderful. Soon we’ll he speaking fluent sixteen-bit hexadecimal double binary interface with an accent somewhere between Star Trek and Prozac.
Back to the point. I have great problems with my spell checker. Specifically, it appears to have little or no idea about acceptable in English usage. Immediately I engage this facility, I expect to be dazzled by ignorance and am seldom disappointed.
As part of my work, I was once required to compose a brief and basic introduction to law and the legislation which features heavily in our daily duties. I was deeply engaged in this enterprise when I foolishly typed the sentence, “Criminal prosecutions are brought by officials representing the state.” I concede, this a passive is sentence. However, my eccentric grammarian friend informs me that this construction is illiterate. Why? It wouldn’t say. In vain, I tried “Criminal prosecutions are brought by agents who act on behalf of the state,” and, “Criminal prosecutions are brought by agents acting on behalf of the state,” but these too were deemed unacceptable. If, just once, it were to offer me an explanation as to where my linguistic shortcomings lay, I would accept it graciously and indeed gratefully. Alas, it does not.
I decided to put it to the test. “David enjoys life in the fast lane,” I typed. It liked it, or at least did not protest. “Summer time and the living is easy,” I ventured and it was accepted. Either it likes Gershwin (although not his name, which is clearly mistyped) or my construction is sound. It even recognized and allowed a gerund, as it should. Neither is it a sin to wantonly split an infinitive, as far as I can tell. “This case clearly demonstrates the legal concept of causation.“ Once again, no problems. Why then should there be a problem with brining prosecutions?
And there you have it. Did you notice that? Brining prosecutions. It accepts “brining prosecutions.” And what, pray tell, does that mean? If, just once, I heard of a solicitor brining or threatening to brine(?) a prosecution against a third party, I should be delighted. Of course, to my knowledge, this has never happened.
Collin’s Concise English Dictionary defines brine as, “a solution of salt and water used for salting and pickling meats” or “The Sea or its waters.” It contains the word brine as a noun and only as a noun. The only ancillary formation, according to Collin’s, is the adjective brinish. My computer’s spell checker not only rejects the word “Collin’s”, but also the dictionary’s brinish offering.
“Prosecution,” on the other hand, is a reasonably common word (depending in which circles one moves). It is defined, again by the objectionable Collin’s, as “the act of prosecuting or the state of being prosecuted.” I would stick my neck out and say that, assuming brining is a word and means the process by which something is preserved in brine (or perhaps “brined?”), a prosecution is so intangible as to not lend itself terribly well to the brining process. And let’s face it, even after such a process, a prosecution would not, in my opinion, be anywhere near as wholesome or tasty a snack as those which are already available in the brine range.
However, if my computer spell checker is to be believed, and brined prosecutions are the snack of the future, transfer those shares now! Clearly, the days of the sardine are numbered…
