Re: odd spelling-checker action

["KLEIN, DAVID" <dk2445 -at- TXMAIL -dot- SBC -dot- COM>]

>I'd like to be able to flag certain word pairs that are easy to switch.
>My head knows the difference between "form" and "from," but my fingers
>don't.

I know there is a way to do this in Word. A former co-worker configured
my spellcheck so it would not recognize some common spelling errors that
are actually real words. When I spellchecked a document it stopped at
words like "massage" (instead of message) and "filed" (instead of
field).
Does anyone know how to do this?? I would love to set this up on my
current PC.
This friend will be visiting at the end of this week and I can ask him
about it then.

DSK
David S. Klein
Technical Writer - Amdocs
Telegence-LD

Phone:  (972) 705-7984
Fax:    (972) 907-5482
Pager   (214) 814-5505
e-mail: davidkl -at- amdocs -dot- com
        dk2445 -at- txmail -dot- sbc -dot- com



> ----------
> From:         Huber, Mike[SMTP:mrhuber -at- SOFTWARE -dot- ROCKWELL -dot- COM]
> Sent:         Monday, March 16, 1998 9:41 AM
> Subject:      Re: odd spelling-checker action
>
> Spell checking could be a lot better. I'd like the spell checker on my
> email (MS Outlook) to recognize names in my address book (or at least
> in
> the To: field) as valid. I've had email systems insert things like
> "RE:"
> and then complain about those very things.
>
> But I agree that the more serious problem is that the dictionaries are
> too wide. I just had one of my reviewers catch me - I skipped a "u"
> and
> turned "value" into "vale." I'm extremely unlikely ever to use the
> word
> "vale" on purpose in a technical context. If it's in a help file it's
> almost certainly a slip of the fingers. I'd rather have it caught by
> the
> machine than by a person.
>
> There is a real low-tech version of the AI that Dick suggests: custom
> dictionaries.
>
> I've toyed with the idea of getting rid of the basic dictionary
> altogether, and building a custom dictionary that includes all the
> words
> that appear in my work. The first few pages would be slow going,
> clicking Add all the time. But the vocabulary I use at work is pretty
> limited (this isn't a practical solution for fiction) so I'm guessing
> it
> wouldn't be long before I had it all entered.
>
> I'd like to be able to flag certain word pairs that are easy to
> switch.
> My head knows the difference between "form" and "from," but my fingers
> don't. It would have to be configurable, though. Maybe I'm odd, but
> "to,
> too, two" has never been a problem for me and I'd hate to have to
> click
> OK for those words all the time.
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From:  Dick Margulis [SMTP:ampersandvirgule -at- worldnet -dot- att -dot- net]
> >Sent:  Saturday, March 14, 1998 12:27 PM
> >To:    TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> >Subject:       Re: odd spelling-checker action
> >
> >...
> >My theory is this: Given the horsepower we now have on our desktops,
> it
> >should be possible to implement a much smarter approach to spell
> >checking. (This is related to, and may turn out to be an extension
> of,
> >the approach used in grammar checkers, which could also use some
> >tweaking.) Look in any printed dictionary. Words have multiple
> meanings
> >and where those meanings pertain to a technical field, the lexies
> have
> >conveniently specified that fact.
> >
> >I think it would be feasible (any software developers out there
> >listening?) to apply some artificial intelligence to catch words that
> >are real (that is, they exist in the dictionary) but that are out of
> >place (that is, they are unlikely to occur in the midst of all the
> other
> >words in this text). As a first pass, I'm willing--as a user--to
> click
> >menu choices to indicate what field I'm working in (mechanical
> >engineering, zoology, metaphysics, whatever), if that helps.
> >
> >Has anyone else been thinking along these lines? Know of any work
> being
> >done? Is this way too esoteric a topic for this list?
> >
>
>