Proof reading help please - General, How to

[Doitsu]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

I'm more likely to use it in Word. The novelty of ducking into LO to use it, would have soon become bothersome.

BTW, you can write your own rules and add them to LanguageTool-3.5\org\languagetool\rules\en\grammar.xml (or delete rules that frequently cause false positives). For example, the following rule will flag split infinitives:

<rule id="SPLIT_INFINITIVE" name="Don't split infinitives">
  <pattern>
    <!-- TO = infinitival to -->
    <token postag="TO"/>
    <!-- RB = adverb -->
    <token postag="RB"/>
    <!-- VB = verb -->
    <token postag="VB"/>
  </pattern>
  <message>Don't split infinitives, unless you're James T. Kirk. ☺ </message>
  <suggestion>to \3 \2</suggestion>
  <short>Split infinitive</short>
</rule>

(I know that split infinitives haven't been frowned upon in a long time.)

If you don't want to fiddle with POS tags, you can create your own word-based rules with the online LanguageTool rule editor.

[BetterRed]

"Aaah. . . to go where no man has gone before, tally-ho and boldly so!"

Thanks, saved for future reference.

BR

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Doitsu

You could theoretically do that, but since the standalone version only supports text files, you'd have to convert your manuscript to a text file.


The standalone version displays exactly the same information as the LibreOffice plugin, but in a different format. I.e., there's absolutely no advantage in using the standalone version. (I believe it was primarily designed for testing purposes.)

Ok. Thanks. Now, one last question--is getting your plugin for Sigil overkill? (I looked at your plugin thread and entered:

I can has cheezeburger

into LO and it caught it.)

And thanks for all the great help. Not having a professional proofreader for my novels, this Language Tool is a real boon for me.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

your link led me to a Language Tools Add-in for Word ==>> LanguageTool Add-in for MS Word.

I'm more likely to use it in Word. The novelty of ducking into LO to use it, would have soon become bothersome.

BR

Cool. Glad you got it.

[Doitsu]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Ok. Thanks. Now, one last question--is getting your plugin for Sigil overkill?

The plugin is only intended as a stop-gap measure for Sigil users who don't want to install LibreOffice or the MS Word plugin.
Since you finally got LanguageTool working in LibreOffice, you won't need to install it.

However, since you've installed Java you might want to give my ePubCheck plugin a try; it'll often find technical problems that the FlightCrew plugin misses (and vice versa).

(If you haven't already installed the Linux Sigil FlightCrew plugin, download FlightCrew_v0.9.1unx.zip and install the zip archive via Plugins > Manage Plugins > Add Plugin > FlightCrew_v0.9.1unx.zip.)

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Doitsu

The plugin is only intended as a stop-gap measure for Sigil users who don't want to install LibreOffice or the MS Word plugin.
Since you finally got LanguageTool working in LibreOffice, you won't need to install it.

However, since you've installed Java you might want to give my ePubCheck plugin a try; it'll often find technical problems that the FlightCrew plugin misses (and vice versa).

(If you haven't already installed the Linux Sigil FlightCrew plugin, download FlightCrew_v0.9.1unx.zip and install the zip archive via Plugins > Manage Plugins > Add Plugin > FlightCrew_v0.9.1unx.zip.)

Thanks Doitsu. Okay, I'm feeling loaded up with stuff (LOL) but I'm also getting a little nervous (like I might be over-doing things).

I've always passed the EPUB Validator:

http://validator.idpf.org/

but never paid much attention to Flight Crew.

Anyway, when I tried to get Flight Crew I ran into screenshot 191. I could find no help Googling on it, but noticing screenshot 192, I'm figuring the answer may lie there somehow.

I was a little (a lot?) psyched out by your (for your Epub check plugin)

Disclaimer: This is a beta version. Even though it's unlikely that it'll somehow corrupt the epub that you're working on or crash Sigil, you may want to save your ePub in Sigil before running this plugin.

Being a non-techie, so that just means I should wait till I'm all done before I run your plug-in and then if it corrupts the file, I can just use the previous file, right? (File corruption makes me very nervous.)

Is corruption an infinitesimal or more prevalent risk of running the plugin?

Thanks.

[Doitsu]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Is corruption an infinitesimal or more prevalent risk of running the plugin?

I included this disclaimer with all my earlier plugins. However, the actual risk is infinitesimal. (I've never lost any data.)

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Anyway, when I tried to get Flight Crew I ran into screenshot 191.

Windows users can simply select Use Bundled Python, however, Linux users need to click the Auto buttons under Use Bundled Python to select the Python interpreter paths.
If you click both Auto buttons you should get at least one Python interpreter path. (The FlightCrew plugin works with both Python 2.7 and Python 3.4.)

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Doitsu

I included this disclaimer with all my earlier plugins. However, the actual risk is infinitesimal. (I've never lost any data.)


Windows users can simply select Use Bundled Python, however, Linux users need to click the Auto buttons under Use Bundled Python to select the Python interpreter paths.
If you click both Auto buttons you should get at least one Python interpreter path. (The FlightCrew plugin works with both Python 2.7 and Python 3.4.)

Okay, Doitsu. I got 'em both. (I am going to have the cleanest epubs in the Universe!) Thanks so much for hanging with me on this and seeing it through!

[JustinThought]

Can I jump in here with an observation? I recently converted my entire John D. MacDonald collection to epub, passing them through Microsoft Word (a really old version) in the process. Of course I ran the spell check, which checks grammar as well. This tool flagged many "grammatical" and "spelling" errors which (<--there's one of 'em!--Word suggested "that") if changed, would change the entire feel of the story!

So, in my opinion, taking liberties with grammar, playing with words in a manner that will give your spellchecker angina pain, are what changes a "vanilla" story into something special.

Just my two cents.

[BetterRed]

@JustinThought - I agree in principle, but:

IIRC Word's Grammar and Style checks have always been optional (none, grammar only, or grammar & style) and configurable e.g. don't want to be told you've split an infinitive, there's a check box for that

Besides which, all the messages are advisory, grammar and style messages don't have a Change All option, but they do have an 'Ignore Rule' option, although the latter may have been added since the current spell checker first appeared in Word '95.

If you have a clean conversion, i.e. one not riddled with OCR scanning errors then, particularly for fiction, why would you even check the spelling, let alone check the grammar and style. As you alluded, regional, and historical cant etc are often essential to the story, especially its humour.

Non-fiction is a bit different, US English grammar can be sometimes be awkward or ambiguous to a non-US English reader, and vice versa of course. Example, because it grates on my sensitive UK English ears, for non-fiction I use a Word exclusion list that includes the word 'gotten' But I decide what to do about them on a case-by-case basis.

Toxaris' ePub-Tools add in for Word, features a spell checker that uses a similar user interface style (i.e. a list of words) to that used by the Sigil and Calibre ePub editors' spell checkers. IMO it is a better interface than Word's word-by-word approach - most of the time.

BR

Just for fun, this message was checked by Word (spelling, grammar and style), ePub-Tools (spelling), and LanguageTools (grammar). Nevertheless, some errors were not detected; nothing beats reading in a different page size, font etc.

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by JustinThought

This tool flagged many "grammatical" and "spelling" errors which (<--there's one of 'em!--Word suggested "that") if changed, would change the entire feel of the story!

As BetterRed said, the Grammar Checks are mostly advisory.

The "that" <-> "which" is a slight difference between American/British English. Even within American English, it is divided into two camps (those who are against using them interchangeably, and those who are for it). For example, here is one of the questions/answers on the English Stack Exchange:

https://english.stackexchange.com/qu...se-which/15216

Also, the English language evolves... so let us say you were working on a book from the 1930s, "which" could have been the "proper"/"more formal" form of grammar back then, but the style has shifted, and the other method became more popular in the present.

That/Which is one of those Grammar Checks in Word that(which?) I just completely ignore.

Originally Posted by BetterRed

If you have a clean conversion, i.e. one not riddled with OCR scanning errors then, particularly for fiction, why would you even check the spelling, let alone check the grammar and style. As you alluded, regional, and historical cant etc are often essential to the story, especially its humour.

The occasional typo can still slip through (even actual typos in the physical book).

For example, I just caught these using Word's Grammar Check in the latest book I am converting ("he" -> "be"):

Such rebellion can he quelled only by force and violence or by control over the rebel’s means of livelihood.

or hard-to-catch mistakes like this ("not" -> "no"):

I predict to you that the time is coming in Sheboygan County, after these people learn the lesson they have coming to them, that it will not longer be necessary for us to have large picket lines either.

"from" -> "form":

The conclusion to be drawn from the evidence surveyed in this chapter is that the causes of the evils which the Committee has found are two—violence and economic compulsion in the from of closed-shop and union-shop agreements.

And Spellcheck is also helpful to catch typos in strange (typically last) names:

Actual: Abraham Teitelbaum
Index (Typo): Tietelbaum, Abraham

Even if you had hawk eyes, these types of errors could easily slip through, even on a thorough read... which is where the tools come in with an assist! And computers do much better at taking the document as an entire whole (Ignore All).

Originally Posted by BetterRed

Non-fiction is a bit different, US English grammar can be sometimes be awkward or ambiguous to a non-US English reader, and vice versa of course. Example, because it grates on my sensitive UK English ears, for non-fiction I use a Word exclusion list that includes the word 'gotten' But I decide what to do about them on a case-by-case basis.

The latest grammar difference I ran across is "in future" (British) and "in the future" (American). The British one just sounds completely wrong to me, but those darn British probably feel the same way!

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

As BetterRed said, the Grammar Checks are mostly advisory.

The "that" <-> "which" is a slight difference between American/British English.

That/Which is one of those Grammar Checks in Word that(which?) I just completely ignore.

The latest grammar difference I ran across is "in future" (British) and "in the future" (American). The British one just sounds completely wrong to me, but those darn British probably feel the same way!

The 'That' v 'Which' controversy has little to do with US v UK English, nor are they interchangeable. This is the best explanation of the difference I know of, from an American writer ==>> Which vs. That - Grammar Rules.

Journalists in particular get it wrong on both sides of 'the pond', the Brits are inclined to always use 'which', whilst the 'Yanks, more often than not, use 'that'. To remove the ambiguities they could at least wrap comma's around additional clauses and none around restrictive clauses, but they seem to ken no even that I'd like to say they are better Down Under, but I'd be lying.

I find case sensitive sorted word lists (with counts) are a good way to pick up inconsistent spelling, especially of Proper Nouns. And Word's little known exclusion lists are a good way to filter out 'unlikely' words - e.g. 'helot' and 'villein' in a contemporary crime thriller should probably be 'harlot' and 'villain'.

Regarding 'in future' v 'in the future', again I don't think has much to do with UK v US English, its about the mood of the sentence. I might write either of the following sentences.

Honoria was livid. 'In future young man you can dally with your doxies in the tack room, or if needs must, in the potting shed. But you will not philander with them in my front parlour or your late aunt's sitting room. Bah, be both of you gone.'

Leon Must said, 'In the future no one will own a car, we will rent them, by the half hour or even minute-by-minute, as we do for parking spaces and... er, Tinder doxies.'

IMO the first demands the imperative mood, so it's 'In future...' But the second needs the indicative mood, so it's 'In the future...' What I wouldn't use in either case is 'going forward'

BR