3 ms·

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=%22give%20him%20flowers%22 https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=%22give%20him%20flower... – if your data set is good enou

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=%22give%20him%20flowers%22 https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=%22give%20him%20flower... – if your data set is good enough, you won't be suggesting insertion there. Maybe calling the perturbed (and model-filtered!) sentence "ungrammatical" is too strong a statement, but that doesn't stop the system from being useful. We don't have a perfect model of NL grammar, but nor do we have complete dictionaries of any NL lexicons – we still rely on spell checkers because they have fairly acceptable false positive rates. Spell checkers also do these perturbations: Levenshtein-edits. And some times they generate sequences that the model (dictionary) will remove because it's already in there with some frequency and they generate a true negative, some times they generate sequences that were simply missing from their data set and they generate a false positive, and some times they generate a sequence that is neither in their model nor in the language and you get a true positive. The same general principle applies to grammar checkers (but they of course are much harder to make with an acceptable false positive rate, and it's much more difficult to generate confusion sets).

YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
>> – if your data set is good enough, you won't be suggesting insertion there. Generally, I doubt you should ever suggest any corrections to the use of articles. This tends to be colloquial, or even personal and there's no point trying to force one style on your users. Unless you like pissing them off (MS Word sure does). As to spellcheckers- I think that goes the other way, doesn't it? You apply some edits to an out-of-vocabulary word you found, to see whether you can arrive at an in-vocabulary word to suggest as a correction. In any case, I'm not disagreeing with anything you say. I'm just saying that "grammatical" and "ungrammatical" have strict definitions and you can't just throw them around like skittles.

YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago

>> – if your data set is good enough, you won't be suggesting insertion there. Generally, I doubt you should ever suggest any corrections to the use of articles. This tends to be colloquial, or even personal and there's no point trying to force one style on your users. Unless you like pissing them off (MS Word sure does). As to spellcheckers- I think that goes the other way, doesn't it? You apply some edits to an out-of-vocabulary word you found, to see whether you can arrive at an in-vocabulary word to suggest as a correction. In any case, I'm not disagreeing with anything you say. I'm just saying that "grammatical" and "ungrammatical" have strict definitions and you can't just throw them around like skittles.