I have to agree and I’m confused at the same time.
2 Likes
i,m a cat. shift keys are challenging when you don,t have fingers.
1 Like
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sure. Most people would benefit from efforts to improve their mastery of language. But life is short, time is finite, and there are other areas of improvement that might seem more relevant at any given moment.
Based on the support queue – admittedly not a representative sample – a lot of Scrivener users are lawyers, academics, and students. As I said, people who may not consider themselves “writers,” but who nonetheless find themselves needing to produce a lot of written material. We appreciate their business, and don’t appreciate it when they (or any other Scrivener users) are insulted for not conforming to someone’s “real writer” ideal.
4 Likes
i think you,re taking an offense that isn,t being offered here…
i haven,t said that such people shouldn’t be appreciated.
i haven,t said that such people shouldn,t be writing.
i haven,t said that such people shouldn,t use the tools available to them.
all i,ve said is that if someone doesn,t have a grasp of the basics there are things they should work on as a matter of priority if they want to be good at long-form writing. i even said that tools such as antidote are probably good learning aids to help develop that. i do, however, believe that you need to recognise that you have that gap to be able to grow, rather than just use such tools as a continual crutch. this has nothing to do with whether someone is a lawyer – who tend to be pretty good at the whole grammar thing in my experience, but then i must confess the lawyers i know tend to be ones who have gravitated to the world of publishing – or an academic – again typically educated to a great basic standard of their native language.
my hypothesis and position are not the strawcats you,re holding them out to be.
Hmm… I think you actually did :
You kinda clearly said that they should first be done with the everlasting, never-ending, life-long task of mastering the language.
That following a dream by any other path was, in your opinion, futile, somewhat dishonest, and wrong.
One way or another, you sure sounded like to me.
i said you shouldn,t expect to be a -professional- writer if you don,t have the -basics- down, any more than you should be a taxi driver without a driving license, a chef without a sense of taste, a surgeon without a medical degree, or a carpenter without an idea how to use a chisel or a hand plane.
i didn,t say that someone in that position shouldn,t write. they should. that,s how they,ll improve. i didn,t say they shouldn,t aspire to be a professional writer. my point is that if that is an aspiration and they have that skill / knowledge gap they should prioritise developing that skill / knowledge. such an investment in their craft will serve them very well.
no, i didn,t. nor am i saying that now, because i don,t agree with that.
Wouldn’t you agree that the basics could be as simple as having an inspiration and a desire to move forward ?
Everybody learns and improves all the time. Even someone having his/her grammar corrected by a software will improve simply by reading back the suggestion(s).
(And by the way, just for the sake of helping the thread stay somewhat on its tracks, Antidote doesn’t correct grammar, nor suggest any turn of phrases – it ain’t at all like Grammarly.)
yes and no.
yes… i agree that inspiration and desire to move forward are enough to get started. i agree that if you want to write, nothing and no one should stop you.
no… i don,t agree that the above alone is all you need as a basic toolkit to be successful at long form writing. long form writing is -really- hard. if someone needs support on the kind of corrections that are displayed in the image below – which by the way is the first image on antidote,s own webpage and they describe themselves as a ,corrector, first and foremost – then they are really going to struggle and should invest in improving in that area. and as i,ve said several times now, tools such as antidote may well be a great way to do that.
Yes, Antidote suggests corrections.
But we’re far from Grammarly that would turn “Hey boss, give me a F* raise or I’m out!” into “[…] in the light of my many years of loyal and dedicated services […]”.
all for just eur59 every single year, to complete the advert.
…or collins will sell you a lovely paperback dictionary and thesaurus boxed set for one off gbp12.25 on amazon.
for the mobile minded, chambers will do you a very helpful dictionary app for gbp8.99 and thesaurus for gbp4.49. again both one off costs.
or there is the very free dictionary.com – amongst others.
i just did two tests on dictionary.com and can confirm that i got 7 out of 7 on my understanding of how the use of affect vs effect, and 10 out of 10 on the prepare-for-the-10th-grade vocab test.
not bad for a cat.
i only got 7 out of 8 on the use of idioms because i didn,t know that the phrase ,ride or die, was a reference to bonnie and clyde.
i somewhat embarrassingly thought it was a fast and the furious reference.
1 Like
1 Like
This is exactly how I have always used spell/grammar check functionality – as a spur to help me remember things I have forgotten, learn new things, or simply just take a look at a chunk of text that probably should just be re-written entirely to avoid setting off the bloody thing.
1 Like
and the thing is, i don,t disagree. i mean who could. that,s a perfectly legitimate use.
so why do i have an issue with them. in short, i don,t if used as the aforementioned aids to fingers-moving-faster-than-the-brain moments. my issue is what insurance companies call ,moral hazard, — or the idea that if you insure an asset, you become less careful in looking after that asset.
take the text in the previously posted screenshot. following the advice of the programme you might make one small correction and then decide that…
So join us for this party we have prepared.
…is a perfectly acceptable sentence and move on. it may be technically acceptable from a grammatical perspective, but it’s a hideous hideous sentence that no native speaker would write.
so using spell checkers and to some extent grammar checkers is not of itself a bad thing, but a very poor substitute for having the knowledge yourself… especially if writing long form texts is something you want to be serious about.
p.s. the dictionary.com quiz on using anytime vs any time is a good one.
1 Like
Getting back to basics or the root of the conversation and not a clever fight amongst felines!
As far as integration to Antidote works, Antidote offers a basic API that communicates using WebSocket technology.
A video is tough to explain how it all works. . . Antidote offers functionalities, options and it’s up to Scrivener’s team to add the buttons or a more suitable way to interact with Antidote. We can gladly accompany the team and suggest a few basic functions. Calling a dictionary on a selection with a button or a context menu for instance. Or correct only this zone of text, but not this one. At this point, this functionality is driven by the UX within the host.
Integrating the API would allow users to call upon Antidote 11 or Antidote Web, based on their choice (or licence). Integrate once, gain all Antidote!
Hope this help. I’m available for further questions.
Alex,
Software Integration Director at Druide informatique
1 Like
Why not? It sounds very much like something a Bond villain might say as he lures Our Hero into his trap.
My point being that grammar, usage, and diction are different things. When a program only claims to address grammar, complaining about its diction seems a little unfair.
1 Like
it,s a hideous hideous sentence that no native speaker would ever write
It sounds very much like something a Bond villain might say
bond is an mi6 employee so by definition his villains are overwhelmingly foreign. so i guess you agree with me.
Bond’s villains are foreign, but his writers are British (and American).
2 Likes