Quirk in W2003 grammar

[L. Mohan Arun]

Copy/paste these sentences into Word 2003 with spelling check enabled
(US english)

These are software that are very easy to use these days

There are downloads that is awesome

There is download that are awesome


The "are" in the first sentence is getting flagged for grammar when it
looks right to me.
The other two sentences seem to be wrong grammar yet W2003 does not
flag them.

I have always noticed that the words "software" and "download" have
trouble with Word 2003 grammar when used with different combinations
with the words "is" or "are" (singular or plural trouble)

 

[L. Mohan Arun]

Disagree - IT IS a problem with W2003 grammar. And I still say

software is a term that needs to be plural not singular. Or both.

I am not saying to change English - I am not interested in that. The
purpose of this discussion is that I think "software" can be both
singular or plural in meaning. The purpose of this posting is not
about usage of English, but about Word 2003 grammar. You can take a
look at the thread subject before you post any more of your answers or
please dont answer at all.

Specifically I am saying that both these sentences with the word
"software" are NOT getting flagged as errors in W2003 grammar

This Software pieces is great
These pieces of Software is great

It is blindly taking "software" as singular even though I have
qualified it with "pieces". So it IS something to do with W2003
grammar with the word "software"

To prove this type this in w 2003
"There are other softwares for doing this."
"Softwares" term is flagged as error - right click - you will find
"software" as an option. Select that and it now complains about the
"are".

I have to say that you seem to be getting irritable with this thread
because you are indulging on a direct personal attack rather than
being an objective contributor. If this thread irritates you, then why
you are posting at all? Let others reply if at all they do.

Bottom line: Both the words "download" and "software" needs fixing in
Grammar in W2003

Yeah so? What I meant is that the grammar implementation in W2003 that
involves these words are not perfect in my opinion.

Who said I wanted *you* to know what my problem is - This is a public
thread where others can read and understand about W2003 grammar
issues. I am not asking *you* in particular about any problem with the
word "download" in W2003 grammar.

If you really wanted to say that "software" is a mass or uncountable
noun you could have given an authoritative link like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun
I am not interested in *YOUR* opinion about English grammar or whether
Word 2003 grammar is correct or not, as you yourself may have English
as second language.

 

[grammatim]

I am not saying to change English - I am not interested in that. The
purpose of this discussion is that I think "software" can be both
singular or plural in meaning. The purpose of this posting is not
about usage of English, but about Word 2003 grammar. You can take a
look at the thread subject before you post any more of your answers or
please dont answer at all.

You are correct that "software" can be either singular or plural in
meaning. You are incorrect in supposing that the verb number agreees
with the meaning of the word rather than the form of the word.

I am a native speaker of English, I have a graduate degree in
linguistics, and I have worked as an editor for nearly forty years.

On this one particular point, "Word2003 grammar" is correct.

Specifically I am saying that both these sentences with the word
"software" are NOT getting flagged as errors in W2003 grammar

This Software pieces is great
These pieces of Software is great

You now completely change the topic, because the subject of the verb
is no longer "software," but "pieces"; of course the verb (as well as
the determinter "these") must be plural, and if "Word2003 grammar"
does not recognize that, then it's a pretty basic flaw in "Word2003
grammar."

It is blindly taking "software" as singular even though I have
qualified it with "pieces". So it IS something to do with W2003
grammar with the word "software"

You have not understood English grammar. What it should be reacting to
is not "software" at all, because "software" is not the subject of the
verb; "pieces" is.

I have to say that you seem to be getting irritable with this thread
because you are indulging on a direct personal attack rather than
being an objective contributor. If this thread irritates you, then why
you are posting at all? Let others reply if at all they do.

Yes, I am getting irritable, because you continue to misstate the most
elementary facts of English grammar.

Yeah so? What I meant is that the grammar implementation in W2003 that
involves these words are not perfect in my opinion.

Any linguist knows that computerized grammar checkers are basically
failures. Human language is far too complex for any computer to
handle. (Yet humans master their own language by the time they're
about three years old.)

Who said I wanted *you* to know what my problem is - This is a public
thread where others can read and understand about W2003 grammar
issues. I am not asking *you* in particular about any problem with the
word "download" in W2003 grammar.

You were rude to Suzanne, one of the nicest people anywhere, and then
you ignored her second reply, so she wisely withdrew from the thread,
leaving it to me, who am known to be able to be rude to people who
provoke rudeness.

If you really wanted to say that "software" is a mass or uncountable
noun you could have given an authoritative link like this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun
I am not interested in *YOUR* opinion about English grammar or whether
Word 2003 grammar is correct or not, as you yourself may have English
as second language.

Your arrogance is unbelievable.

Maybe you should save your attacks for the people who took your (or
your parents') money for teaching you English, and failing so utterly.

 

[L. Mohan Arun]

This Software pieces is great

These pieces of Software is great

No this is not a different topic - take a look at the topic again -
"Quirk in W2003 grammar" related to the keyword "software". So in your
opinion it is "pretty basic flaw". Not mine. I think it is a flaw
nonetheless.

It is blindly taking "software" as singular even though I have
qualified it with "pieces". So it IS something to do with W2003
grammar with the word "software"

You have an attitude problem with non-English speakers that clouds
your objective judgement, if you have any. The word "pieces" by itself
is recognized as plural correctly, but when used with the "software"
combination it creates a problem. So "software" is still the problem.

I have to say that you seem to be getting irritable with this thread
because you are indulging on a direct personal attack rather than
being an objective contributor. If this thread irritates you, then why
you are posting at all? Let others reply if at all they do.

yeah so, there are millions of people worldwide who have mistaken
assumptions in worldwide forum threads or newsgroup threads like this.
But you are the single person I have ever come across that indulged in
a direct attack and I would attribute it to your attitude about non-
English speakers who are using English.

Who said I wanted *you* to know what my problem is - This is a public
thread where others can read and understand about W2003 grammar
issues. I am not asking *you* in particular about any problem with the
word "download" in W2003 grammar.

<<You were rude to Suzanne, one of the nicest people anywhere, and
then
Are you out of your mind? I have not been rude to anybody in any
thread. Please clean your glasses from 40 years use and read through
the thread again from top to bottom for any hint of rudeness on my
part. It is *you* who are being rude to me, not the other way around.
If you can help, help. Otherwise please find somewhere else to post
about your irritations. And I have not "ignored her second reply"
because you replied after her, and I have replied concerning *your*
post. I have not provoked any rudeness - if you are rude to me on a
public thread, I can be rude too.

If you really wanted to say that "software" is a mass or uncountable
noun you could have given an authoritative link like this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun
I am not interested in *YOUR* opinion about English grammar or whether
Word 2003 grammar is correct or not, as you yourself may have English
as second language.

Again, you are *crazy* and *with attitude problem* for saying "my
arrogance is unbelievable". It is who you are being arrogant with me.
And I can say that I do better English than some of the native English
speakers and writers.

 

[grammatim]

And I can say that I do better English than some of the native English
speakers and writers.

Sorry, what is "I do better English"?

 

[L. Mohan Arun]

I am sick and tired of the irritable and provoking replies in this
thread so my grammar has slipped up. This thread is not about my
grammar, it is about Word 2003 grammar.

More issues with Word 2003 grammar
These downloads is super-fast and free.

-> Grammar error not recognized even though "download" is not a mass
noun.

The movie file downloads happens very fast

-> No grammar issue recognized but it should be "happen very fast"

 

[Graham Mayor]

Fortunately we are not all as perfect as 'grammatim', but ultimately you are
correct that Word's grammar checker (like all other grammar checkers) has
limitations. Given the complexity and changing nature of the English
language, I doubt that there will ever be a grammar checker that will be
flawless. It is one of those things that you must learn to live with ... or
simply turn it off and use your own judgement.

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP


<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

 

[Tony Jollans]

it should be "happen very fast"

Actually it should be "happen very quickly" ;-)

The grammar checker is far from perfect and, whilst it will probably improve
over time, is likely to remain so. In general, it struggles with constructs
of the sort you are using as examples, which can't easily be parsed.

Not knowing quite how to interpret the sentence, Word has to make some
guesses. Given that the sentence has several possible nouns, several
possible verbs, no obvious adjectives, and appears somewhat odd on the
surface, my *guess* is that it assumes "movie" to be an adjective,
downloads" to be the verb, and "happens" to be a noun, which assumptions
allow it to consider the sentence to be valid.

Yes, it happens to be wrong, but we all make mistakes, one of which would be
relying on machine interpretations of language.

 

[grammatim]

Fortunately we are not all as perfect as 'grammatim', but ultimately you are
correct that Word's grammar checker (like all other grammar checkers) has
limitations. Given the complexity and changing nature of the English
language, I doubt that there will ever be a grammar checker that will be
flawless. It is one of those things that you must learn to live with ... or
simply turn it off and use your own judgement.

It has nothing to do with "perfection." It has to do with two simple
facts. (1) Computers are not competent to judge the grammar of human
languages, and (2) L. Mohan Arun is not competent to assert what is
and what is not a grammatical sentence of English (witness his
repeated insistence that "software" can legitimately take a plural
verb).

This thread from the start has had nothing to do with using Word.

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

There's nothing wrong with "fast" as an adverb, but I don't see how any
grammar checker could parse "happens" as a noun since there is no way it
could be used as such. I suspect the issue is of not recognizing "download"
as a possible noun (only as a verb), which means it is making the verb agree
with "movie" or "file" (or "movie file").

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

 

[Tony Jollans]

There's nothing wrong with "fast" as an adverb

That doesn't mean that it is correct here. Perhaps it's a difference between
English and American, and I will concede that such usage of "fast" is not
uncommon, but it jars horribly with me.

I suspect the issue is of not recognizing "download" as a possible noun
(only as a verb), which means it is making the verb agree with "movie" or
"file" (or "movie file").

I agree, and I was only guessing at how a machine might think; it's probably
given up the fight by the time it's got as far as "happens", but if it is
recognising (or treating) "downloads" as a verb, what can it think "happens"
might be, that wouldn't give rise to a grammar error of some sort?

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Will you accept the authority of the Oxford Dictionary?
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/jargonbuster/a/adverb

Interestingly,
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&fkt=1235&fsdt=3844&q=fast+as+adverb&aq=f&oq=fast+as+adverb&aqi=
turns up quite a few sites that use "fast" as an *example* of an adverb. The
fact that it doesn't end in -ly doesn't make it only an adjective any more
than ending in -ly makes "leisurely," "friendly," or "lonely" an adverb.
Many adverbs don't end in -ly, and some have the same form as an adjective.
See "Adjective and adverb with the same form" at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv217.shtml
(note: a BBC Web site, not U.S.). More at
http://www.fortunecity.com/bally/durrus/153/gramch25.html

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

 

[Tony Jollans]

I never suggested it wasn't - or couldn't be - an adverb; I merely think
it's the wrong adverb in context.

I do not like, and would not normally use, "he ran fast", whatever the OED
says. I might use "... need to drive so fast". The difference is so subtle
that it seems only I can see it <g>.

I must, of course, bow to the OED, and accept it as being correct.

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Okay, I will accept that you are making a distinction of usage rather than
grammar, and I'll bow to that since context certainly does determine the
suitability of given words.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

 

[grammatim]

Which of these does either of you prefer:

"Who was faster, Bannister or Coe?"
"Who was quicker, Bannister or Coe?"

(You don't need to be able to say _why_ you prefer one or the other,
only that one of them "feels" better than the other -- or not.)

Okay, I will accept that you are making a distinction of usage rather than
grammar, and I'll bow to that since context certainly does determine the
suitability of given words.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org

I never suggested it wasn't - or couldn't be - an adverb; I merely think
it's the wrong adverb in context.

I do not like, and would not normally use, "he ran fast", whatever the OED
says. I might use "... need to drive so fast". The difference is so subtle
that it seems only I can see it <g>.

I must, of course, bow to the OED, and accept it as being correct.

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

But there it's a matter of adjectives, not adverbs. I personally have no
objection to "he ran fast," so you'll have to take this up with Tony.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

Which of these does either of you prefer:

"Who was faster, Bannister or Coe?"
"Who was quicker, Bannister or Coe?"

(You don't need to be able to say _why_ you prefer one or the other,
only that one of them "feels" better than the other -- or not.)

Okay, I will accept that you are making a distinction of usage rather than
grammar, and I'll bow to that since context certainly does determine the
suitability of given words.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org

I never suggested it wasn't - or couldn't be - an adverb; I merely think
it's the wrong adverb in context.

I do not like, and would not normally use, "he ran fast", whatever the
OED
says. I might use "... need to drive so fast". The difference is so
subtle
that it seems only I can see it <g>.

I must, of course, bow to the OED, and accept it as being correct.

 

[Tony Jollans]

As Suzanne says, these are adjectives, but there is still a difference; in
isolation, I prefer the first, although either could be acceptable,
dependent upon the wider context.

I might need to sleep on it before expressing a cogent defence, though

--
Enjoy,
Tony

www.WordArticles.com

Which of these does either of you prefer:

"Who was faster, Bannister or Coe?"
"Who was quicker, Bannister or Coe?"

(You don't need to be able to say _why_ you prefer one or the other,
only that one of them "feels" better than the other -- or not.)

Okay, I will accept that you are making a distinction of usage rather than
grammar, and I'll bow to that since context certainly does determine the
suitability of given words.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org

I never suggested it wasn't - or couldn't be - an adverb; I merely think
it's the wrong adverb in context.

I do not like, and would not normally use, "he ran fast", whatever the
OED
says. I might use "... need to drive so fast". The difference is so
subtle
that it seems only I can see it <g>.

I must, of course, bow to the OED, and accept it as being correct.

 

[grammatim]

Part of my point is that the difference between "fast" and "quickly"
in the initial sentence doesn't turn on part of speech, but on lexical
choice; part of my point is to show how a tiny linguistics experiment
can help clear up the question about the initial sentence by looking
at the data from a different angle.

 

[Tony Jollans]

Part of my point is that the difference between "fast" and "quickly"

in the initial sentence doesn't turn on part of speech, but on lexical
choice;

I completely agree. When I first posted it, I didn't give it a lot of
thought; it wasn't the main point, and I did add a smiley; it was just
something that seemed correct to me.

Both you and Suzanne are better linguists than I, and I wouldn't argue
(much) in my own defence, but, having slept on it, I think the difference
between "fast" and "quickly" is related to whether one is describing a
completed action, similar to the difference between the imperfect and
perfect tenses.

part of my point is to show how a tiny linguistics experiment
can help clear up the question about the initial sentence by looking
at the data from a different angle.

I agree completely here too! I am reminded of Enoch Powell, an English
politician of thirty or so years ago, who, when asked about his precise
speech, replied that he translated everything into latin before saying it,
and if it wouldn't translate, it must be wrong. I don't think I would dream
of doing anything like that, even if I could, but it would certainly be a
way of looking from a different angle.

--
Enjoy,
Tony

www.WordArticles.com

Part of my point is that the difference between "fast" and "quickly"
in the initial sentence doesn't turn on part of speech, but on lexical
choice; part of my point is to show how a tiny linguistics experiment
can help clear up the question about the initial sentence by looking
at the data from a different angle.

 

[Gordon Bentley-Mix]

For once, Peter, I agree with you completely on all points. (And I mean that
sincerely.)
--
Cheers!

Gordon Bentley-Mix
Word MVP

Uninvited email contact will be marked as SPAM and ignored. Please post all
follow-ups to the newsgroup.