On Sunday, June 30, 2002, at 08:37 AM, drieux wrote:
>
> On Saturday, June 29, 2002, at 11:07 , George Georgalis wrote:
>
>> Huh? Why not look it up in a dictionary? ... oh I guess you said that to
>> :)
>
> part of the problem is that there are many
> dictionary routines that would consider
>
> algorithm
>
> to be a legitimate word - irregardless of
> the correct annotation in the OED. { in
> particular this autoSpellingWingDingDing MUA
> does not like 'irregardless' - but accepts
> 'algorithm' blindly. }
>
> there are also problems with such systems,
>
> eg:
> complement v. compliment
> stationary v. stationery
>
> but that takes us into the level of semantics...
>
> { one of the reasons that I leave most of this class of problem
> to the TerranInfestationUnits and their NerfHerding Fellow travellors,
> since there is 'the english that we speak' and that which we write'... }
>
>> ispell on unix, http://www.wordsmyth.net/ and http://www.dict.org/ have
>> an API for programs but I've not used it...
>>
>> // George
>
> My complements on these two references.
speaking of which - hard to break an old habit - eh?
my 'compliments' to the chef.
>
> ciao
> drieux
pob
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
