I think there are two strands here. As you say, teaching grammar probably merits a new thread. But this thread was originally about disagreeing with a software grammar checker, and that seems to lead naturally into the question of who do you trust when different "authorities" (Word grammar checker, Strunk and White, Longman Student Grammar and so on) disagree with each other or even themselves. I think we would all agree that if whoever you are submitting to has a style guide that rules on whatever is bugging you then their style guide trumps all else. But what about the rest of the time? Do you think that merits a new thread, or does it follow naturally enough from the original subject?
I wouldn't count Microsoft Word (or any software program) as an authority on grammar. Charlie Edit: I just did a search for information on errors in Microsoft Word grammar check, and there is actually a site that is dedicated to demonstrating the problems with Microsoft Word's grammar check. Here's a short snippet from a sample, from that site, of perfectly acceptable grammar according to the "authority" Microsoft Word: Marketing Bad. Marketing Good. Marketing are bad for brand big and small. You Know What I am Saying? It is no wondering that advertisings are bad for company in America, Chicago and Germany. Updating of brand image bad for processes in one company and many companies. McDonalds is good brand. McDonald’s is good brand. McDonald’s are good brand. McDonalds’ are good brand. McDonald’s and Coca Cola are good brand. McDonald’s and Coca Cola is good brand. MCDONALD’S AND COCA COLA IS GOOD BRAND. Finance good for marketing. Show me money??!! Finance, operation and accounting good for marketing. Finance, operation and accounting good for marketing for bad company and good manager. Finance, operation, accounting good for marketing for bad company and good manager. Finance, operation, accounting good for marketing, advertising, branding for bad company, good manager.
I know you're trying to be funny, but Strunk & White is certainly an authority. It may be one you disagree with. Hypothetically, it may be one you disagree with in the majority of cases. But it was a grammar book written by human beings and accepted by many human beings as authoritative. Disagreement with Strunk & White doesn't mean they're not authorities any more than disagreeing with a particular politician means that that person is not a politician. For Microsoft Word as an authority, see the sample above. I'm quite sure Strunk & White would disapprove of the grammar that Microsoft Word approved. But Microsoft Word isn't an authority because it isn't a human being, not because it's often wrong. There's an old joke by George Carlin: "Somewhere in the world is the worst doctor. Process of elimination, eventually you'll find the worst doctor. What's frightening is, somebody has an appointment to see him tomorrow!" This is true--yet that person is a doctor. A computer program that steps you through your symptoms and tells you you have whooping cough isn't a doctor. (Not that I think Strunk & White is the worst grammar book. I actually think it is very good, despite containing some errors.) Charlie
However, Strunk and White is considered an authority among writers, or at the very least, a reliable reference. Any software program is limited because it has to ame assumptions about how each word is used in a sentence. However, grammar references explain the principles, without having to make assumptions about a particular sequence of words. In order to use either one effectively, you must understand the role of each word in the sentence, and how that maps to the various punctuation rules that could apply. With a software program, you may also have to also second-guess the assumptions applied by the program to the various words and phrases. If you question the validity of the grammar rules themselves, as explained by a particular reference, consult more than one reference. I routinely use four from my own collection, although they rarely actually disagree. Some simply cover more rules or explain a particular rule better.
Well put. These are tools, not gods or idols, not inerrant or written in stone. We need to apply our learning and knowledge and, when in question, as you point out, we should consult more than one reference. And, as you point out the software programs have built in assumptions to identify possible errors, whereas grammar books explain principles. Charlie
