Word should recognize all gramattical forms of new words added..

[Guest]

When a new word is added to the dictionary in MS Word, all grammatical forms
of that word should be automatically recognized so I dont have to keep adding
new words for different forms of the original word.

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...0ec6f0&dg=microsoft.public.word.docmanagement

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Word has no way of knowing what part of speech the word you added is or, if
it is a noun, how its plural or possessive is formed or, if it is a verb,
how it is conjugated.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

When a new word is added to the dictionary in MS Word, all grammatical forms
of that word should be automatically recognized so I dont have to keep adding
new words for different forms of the original word.

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...0ec6f0&dg=microsoft.public.word.docmanagement

 

[Herb Tyson [MVP]]

No. But, wouldn't it be cool if it did? ;-)

I could just make up a word and add it, and Word would automatically
integrate it into the English language. Now, that's what I call artificial
intelligence!

 

[Patrick Schmid]

Word actually knows most likely what part of speech the word is, because it
is in the context of a sentence. If just one word of an entire sentence is
not known to Word, it is definitely not a problem to figure out the part of
speech for that word. Part of speech taggers do a fairly good job with that
and Word must certainly have one built-in for its grammar check.
The other issues you pointed our are a lot harder though. In my opinion, the
future of spell checking will be some hybrid of local content (current spell
checking) and content on the Internet. For example, Google's spell check is
superior to Word's, but only because it uses a lot of data from websites to
build its dictionary, which you can't do with a local and in comparison
rather static dictionary like Word's.

Patrick Schmid

 

[Jezebel]

Which is the verb in "Time flies like an arrow" ? (cf "Fruit flies like a
banana.")

 

[Patrick Schmid]

Using the Stanford POS tagger
(http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/tagger.shtml):

Time/NNP flies/VBZ like/IN an/DT arrow/NN ./.

Fruit/NNP flies/VBZ like/IN a/DT banana/NN ./.

NNP: noun, proper, singular
VBZ: verb, present tense, 3rd person singular
IN: preposition or conjunction, subordinating
DT: determiner
NN: noun, common, singular or mass

I grabbed a random POS tagger. There are many others out there (including
some with different statistical approaches) and also a good POS tagger is
trained.
A good POS tagger doesn't have to be right all the time, but should be right
most of the time (>90%). As surprising as it might be, that's pretty dammed
good and sufficient for most purposes. You'd be surprised how low some
accuracy rates are for a lot of things involving natural language. Compared
to those, POS tagging is really a non-issue anymore.

Patrick

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Clearly it does a better job with the first sentence than with the second.
Ability to recognize "fruit flies" as a phrase would be helpful.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

 

[Jezebel]

Problem is that syntactically, the verb in the first one might be 'time',
'flies' or 'like'. The MIT project barfed on this one because there are five
valid syntactic interpretations.

 

[Herb Tyson [MVP]]

The subject line proposition was for Word to add all grammatical forms for
words you "add" to the dictionary. I suspect that the tagger wouldn't do
very well for what was proposed in the subject line. For example:

David gretimal a ranola lovely gindur of wabulina.

I can add gertimal, ranola, gindur and wabulina to the dictionary.

Suzanne's original point was that if you're ADDING words to Word's
dictionary, it can't possibly be expected to know what part of speech they
is, let alone begin to guess at other grammatical forms. ;-)

 

[Graham Mayor]

Finereader (the OCR software) approaches this in an interesting way, by
allowing the user to set all the variations when saving a word to its
dictionary. This can become quite irritating after a while

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

 

[Herb Tyson [MVP]]

Yep. After a while, it really ranolas my gindur. ;-)