See/sees

See.

Don't rely on Word's grammar checker. It's notoriously flawed.

You're right. Word is wrong. Mine is always confused about it's.

(View the squigglies as a splash of color meant to brighten your day.)

Yeah, you're right--and grammar checkers frequently lack nuance. There was a version of Word once that refused to see the name "Christian" as a proper noun, and insisted it was always an adjective. So if I wrote "Christian crossed the bridge," it would try to correct it to "The Christian person crossed the bridge."

Yeah.... just turn it off. It's worse than useless cos it makes you waste time doubting yourself.

I turned off all as-you-write, auto changes as well as the grammar checker. I do keep the spell checker on, just to give this clueless writer a heads up on possible speiling eros.

See? We can occasionally all agree on something.

Turning off the auto correct function is an important improvement in your software. Auto correct inserts errors into your work, and sometimes it is difficult to find the errors.

For what it's worth, the correct usage is 'see' because it's in the subjunctive. It's the same principle as 'if I were you', rather than 'was'.
I can't particularly fault microsoft for failing to making this corner of grammar all that robust, given how rarely the subjunctive actually rears its head.

I would disagree with the "turn it off" advice, because the MS-Word grammar checker does in fact catch some useful things. But don't treat it as gospel, and ignore the little squiggly lines when you know better. Your example is correct, in using the subjunctive case (I think), and in that instance the grammar checker is replete avec merde. As just one other example, it will always flag sentence fragments; but sentence fragments are a common and accepted usage in fictional narrative. The grammar checker is an exercise in application of rules for academic writing, and doesn't always fit the kinds of writing done by a creative writer.

caw

See (not that you need another confirmation, but just here is one more anyway).

Wishing I could teach Word subjunctive. And so many other things. I get tired of seeing red squiggly lines. I wish I could see them as brightening my day, as mentioned up thread, but instead I just ignore them as best I can, and wonder how many could be correct. But I figure I will go back and look later, when I am ready to deal with them.

Word is a cross between a beta reader and a sat nav. There is no harm in listening to what it has to say - sometimes it points out something useful - but you have to use your own judgment to overrule it when it is talking cobblers.

Given the complexity of the English language, it's quite a feat for the Word grammar check to find the things that it does. It doesn't understand what we are typing - all of its suggestions are based on analysing a small number of key words.

I would certainly agree with turning off anything that word offers to do automatically, whether it is spell checking or grammar or formatting. But there is no harm in looking at what it suggests, as long as you take it with a very large pinch of salt.

The spell checker that is working at the moment insists on changing wellies (UK English slang for more than one wellington boot) into willies.

If it were me, I would change it to 'saw' but...

Bufty said:

If it were me, I would change it to 'saw' but...

Click to expand...

I've noticed lots of writers avoid the subjunctive mood, so you're not alone. To me, it depends on the diction of the POV or character.

Word's checker can and does get things wrong, but sometimes when it is wrong that can indicate another issue: a sentence that is somewhat convoluted or unnecessarily complex that might benefit from a rewrite or simplification. If Word is struggling to grasp your meaning, readers may too.

paddismac said:

I don't normally spend too much time arguing with MSWord's grammar check, but this one threw up a smell that I can't get past.

The context is that the MC is trying to look at something out the car window, and this is what I wrote:


"<snip> The convent would soon come into view. The nuns there had been raising some extraordinary, prize-winning animals, and it was vital to her plan that she see them as soon as possible."


Word is citing "subject-verb agreement" as an issue, and wants "and it was vital to her plan that she sees them..."

That just sounds wrong to my ear, but if you grammar peeps tell me that Word is correct in this instance, I'll hold my nose and change it. (Truth is, I've read those two sentences so many times now that they BOTH sound stupid and I think that the girl just needs to close her eyes and forget about it.)

Thanks for your time!

Click to expand...

See is correct, because it's talking about something she should do, not something she's already done or is doing currently.

She sees the nuns. (I think grammar checker thinks this is what you mean)

vs

She should go see the nuns. (this is what you really mean)

I think grammar checker has a lot of trouble with complex sentences. I will say that the sentence is a bit confusing, because it could be read that the "them" she should be seeing is actually the animals. I think you mean she should go see the nuns about the animals, but it could also be read that she should go see the animals, because she thinks extraordinary, prize-winning animals are cool to look at.

Word is not wrong as often as most think, especially if you have it set for fiction. And even when it is wrong, it tells you why it wants something a certain way, and if you check the rule, you can learn a lot.

Word often flunks the subjective, but still gives the right rule, and about nine writers out of ten also flunk the subjective. If you take teh time to check teh rule when Word says something is wrong, you can learn grammar fast, and Word is right far more often than it's wrong, and far more often than most writers who don't use it.

Word is exceptionally good at most things, and if your manuscripts is filled with squiggly lines, you have problems. If it isn't, it's because Word is right far more often than not.

Word is also very good at finding passive sentences, something many writers have problems with.

I make use of Word's various functions--AutoCorrect, spell-check, grammar-check. You can tell Word to stop auto-correcting certain things and you can teach it certain words. These tools are helpful when in catching my (many) typos as I write. As far as grammar . . . I always take a look when I see the green squiggles, and a lot of times Word has caught a typo. That's what it's good for: catching a silly error. You, as a writer, need to know what's right and when to be wrong. Word can't help you with that.

Once! said:

Word is a cross between a beta reader and a sat nav. There is no harm in listening to what it has to say - sometimes it points out something useful - but you have to use your own judgment to overrule it when it is talking cobblers.

Click to expand...

CORRECT, totally. Which brings up another piece of advice:

Learn grammar. Don't make excuses. It ain't particle physics or linear algebra. Lots of resources exist for this purpose. For a writer not to understand English grammar is akin to a carpenter not understanding how to use a screwdriver or a tape measure. NO EXCUSES. Period.

caw