That’s the sort of thing we were trained to do. In Full-Test-Wikipedia–Rule-0.1–Sentence-Fragment.txt, some sentences are incorrectly identified as subordinate clauses. I have most of the rules roughly mapped out, it is just testing and refining that is taking the time.īy the way, if I eventually get them all finished and want to support the rules, is there anyway I can get user feedback, on errors or annoyances?
Sentence fragment checker code#
The second number identifies the particular rule-group, and the letter code identifies the sub rule inside the rule-group. This sometimes leads to annoying error messages such as with “on autopilot”, the error message is technically correct and the article would normally be missing, except, it’s being used as a verb.Īnyway, trying to figure out which missing article rule is causing the problem is an exercise in futility, they all use the same error message and there are twenty nine of them! I would rather my rules were useful and easily repaired, hence each error message has an identifying code which, at the moment is:Ġ.- : means its tidying up basic punctuation by finding common errors based on word lists.ġ.- : means it is working directly with PoS and coordinating conjunctionsĢ.- : means it is working directly with PoS and subordinate conjunctionsģ.- : means it is working directly with PoS and conjunctive adverbs Unfortunately, English, is a very dynamic language and, depending on fashion, we can use nouns as verbs. I have noticed that some of the more sophisticated rules, for example the one for “missing articles”, have as many as twenty or thirty sub-rules forming rule-groups. … BTW, where does that name “R0.1B” come from, is that an identifier from some style guide? Often, the error is tied up with poor phrasing and sentence construction, (using ‘That’ instead of ‘This’ is very common.) Where this happens, I have offered a basic correction, followed by a fuller correction of the entire passage. Of the other 52 hits, they are all valid punctuation errors, and I have inserted the corrected sentence below the error report.
I suggested bodge solutions, but the truth is, my punctuation rules do not handle this type of notation very well.
This leaves a total of 55 errors, of these 3 involved mathematical texts: The problem being that it is fairly common, when writing mathematical formula, to spread a sentence over several lines.
Sentence fragment checker full#
There are 97 recorded errors, of which 22 were caused by converting tables into pure text, 12 were quotes, (2 of which were deliberate puns,) and 5 were subheadings, 1 error was caused by an abbreviation with an incorrect full stop, (I marked the appropriate link,) and 1 error was caused by the text conversion being unable to handle subscripts, another error was an intentional example. The test sample was 311 articles from Wikipedia: 11.5 MB excluding footnotes and references.
Finally, correct punctuation is very sensitive to phrasing. Another possibility, with narrative or rhetorical styles, is a missing question or exclamation mark. A subordinate conjunction ending a sentence would normally not be punctuated: Though a colon may be used for emphasis. Alternatively, if the SC is subordinate to the preceding sentence, the two sentences should be joined. R0.1B: This can be a subtle error: “\2 \3” introduce a subordinate clause however, there is neither punctuation nor coordinating conjunction to indicate a main clause. Unfortunately, pinning the exact location of an error is nearly impossible the rule can only say that the error exists. I am working on a fuller set of rules that, will specifically deal with conjunctions of all types.
Sentence fragment checker zip file#
I have attached a zip file containing a rule that searches for “sentence fragments”, plus the full test results, (see below for summary.)įinding 52 errors in 311 articles may seem excessive but, while it is only looking for fragment sentences, it touches upon one of the least understood aspects of sentence construction in English: Subordinate conjunctions and their relationship to an independent clause.
0 kommentar(er)
