Welcome to the Snowblog!
This is the place to hear the thoughts of those at Snowbooks. We'll post about book launches, new reviews, and whatever's running through our heads at any given moment. We hope you enjoy it!
Search the Snowblog and website
If you'd like to contact us about anything you read here, please feel free to email us at blog@snowbooks.com.
Feeds
Elsewhere
Archives
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
Reference documents
Computers. [Hur.] What are they good for? Absolutely...
posted by Emma on October 27, 2007 09:16 PM

The solution?
... nothing when it comes to proofreading.
Answer me this, linguistics fans. (That'll be you then, Rob. We really should find some other way of communicating rather than via this blog. If only there were some sort of cable-based system where individual handsets, incorporating both a speaker and microphone, could be allocated a number, and if entered on an associated keypad the handsets could connect to each other? Maybe in the fantastical, far-off future. But I digress.) Is written language so blinking complicated that a computer can't be told all its rules? I thought not. So why do I still have to spend 48 hours proofreading a book manually?
Surely - surely - there must be a program somewhere that automatically flags up things like missing punctuation, capitalised letters where they shouldn't be, inverted commas the wrong way round, hyphens where en dashes should be, doubled up words, words that shouldn't be next to each other and so on?
I should really get on with my Java coursework, then write an application to do it. It can't be that hard.
Comments: 2
All content © Snowbooks | Privacy policy
If you've ever tried Word's automated grammar check, you'll know why a computer can't proofread. *grin* I will never voluntarily write 'wanna' or 'gotta'.
Apart from then, obviously.
Posted by: Rachel Green on October 27, 2007 11:26 PM
Your headset idea is interesting and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter. But on the subject of this grammar program...I think it's because computers can't judge appropriateness. Sometimes "ain't" is justified; comma splices work in dialogue sentences where they don't in narrative sentences; sometimes you gotta wanna break the rules. Computers don't think that way. Rules are rules.
Posted by: KatharineC on October 29, 2007 02:00 PM