More Complete Spell-Check Dictionary

I take full advantage of the spell-check dictionary’s Learn feature to add words, but for future releases, a more robust dictionary would be a good idea.

As a tiny company, we don’t currently have the resources to develop our own dictionary, I’m afraid, and so are at the moment reliant on Aspell and what is provided with that. Hopefully this will improve in the future, though.

Yep. I agree with this too. I read the reply so I hope that Scrivener will be able to develop this side of things. I would request an British English dictionary as I constantly have to keep reading suggestions to change everything to US spellings. … and no… I’m not going to start writing in American English to solve this problem either…

If Scrivener gets a good dictionary then I can finally ditch word forever… woohoo…

The Mac OS comes with a British English dictionary as standard (I mean that it is normally among the many dictionaries on the system – there are fifteen on mine), so it is strange if you haven’t got one on your Mac.

If you want more, you could always use Spell Catcher (

Cheers, Martin.

Indeed - Scrivener for Mac uses the standard OS X spell-checker, the same one used by Mail, Pages and most other Cocoa programs. And Scrivener was designed and developed by a Brit (me). :slight_smile:

I use WordWeb
really works well with scrivener
double click a word to highlight it and the ctrl & Alt and w and hey presto its there ( and its free)

WordWeb is not a spelling checker, though. (At least, the Mac version is not.) And I was rather shocked when I tried it some time ago to discover that it used the non-standard pronunciation of “comparable” for its audio. There is enough misinformation out there without more being spread. As far as I’m concerned the OED is sacred in these matters (except when it comes to -ize and -ise, where I agree with Cambridge).


sorry only a thought :blush:

My turn to be sorry – that came over as rather trenchant criticism of what was, in fact, a very useful suggestion. Not what I intended, so my apologies. I think WordWeb is a very useful program, and I like it, but I do wish we didn’t have this creeping legitimisation of non-standard pronunciations and grammar. But then, I used to be an English teacher, and I hold to the old-fashioned view that some things ARE incorrect, despite what political correctness tells us. Rant over!

Cheers, Martin.

It must make you absolutely ecstatic when Mr, K, Wock and I get going. If you could actually slaughter a language I’m pretty sure we would be the butchers of English.

What I actually hate most of all are the kinds of linguistic idiocy that are the result of fashion. In this country there presently seems to be a fashion for calling people a “legend”. Most of those who use this expression clearly have no idea what it actually means (originally it was a biography of a saint). In an extension of this, I not long ago heard someone refer to a person as “a ledge” – presumably someone you can lean on in times of trouble. There is nothing new in this, of course. I gather that in the early 18th century the word “hugely” became immensely fashionable, and the poet Alexander Pope was once diverted to hear a young lady describe something as “hugely little”. This forum is an oasis of sanity compared with what is out there “in the wild”. Even the BBC doesn’t seem to know that “under way” is two words, not one. It beggars belief. Have you ever seen anyone write “inprogress” or “inmovement”? Why would “under way” be a single word? Where is the logic behind that assumption?

Cheers, Martin.

Doubleplusungood doublethink there, Martin.


It’s in the OED (from 1934), although I too prefer ‘under way’.

But why do we find ‘underway’ unacceptable as an adverb but not ‘underground’ (earliest notice 1598)?



Might I proffer an uneducated hypothesis?

“Underground” is a physical location while “under way” is a deterministic state of progress.

Meaning that underground is objective while under way is purely subjective.

Interesting. I’d say that the acceptability of “underground” might have something to do with the fact that it’s an adverb of position – like “upstairs”, “outside”, and so forth. Moreover, “underground” as a single word has been in use for several centuries, so perhaps it is just more established. To me, “under way” is a nautical term, and to write it in another manner disguises that association and turns it into a modern buzzword. “Forever” just seems like a modern slogan to me, while “for ever” looks like a long time – it draws attention to the actual meaning of the word(s). I look forward to seeing something “inprogress” before too long.

Cheers, Martin.

PS: Jaysen – you beat me to it. I think you have something there. It looks bizarre to have an adverb of motion cobbled together from two separate words. You need to have “way” (meaning movement through the water) as a separate element – just as you need “progress” as a separate element in the example above.



[1] That one really does annoy me…

Alright already! Altogether now, Oll Raight!