|
The bit that the checker "corrected" is italicised; and the bit in brackets is paraphrased, for brevity:
- How was he to know that almost every [person in the group had done something]
The "correction":
- How he to know that almost every was [person in the group had done something]
I do so enjoy having a laugh at the idiocy of grammar fu checkers.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
"... like a lamp to those who perceive the meaning of words, and like a hand mirror for a blind man to those without grammar." Bhatti: "Bhattikhavya" 7th. century CE.
The key to correct usage is in the context you intend the reader to imagine. In this case, if you intend to imply that it is in the future ... not present, or past ... that someone cannot "know," then: "would" is appropriate. If your readers assume, or, you have already made clear in the context, you are discussing "future," then greater explicitness may not be necessary.
There is a level of semantic ambiguity in the use of "how," here. Is it a marker for rhetorical usage, or, is it a direct question that asks for a literal description of "method(s)" ? "How" as rhetoric invites a projective response; "how" as gimme-details asks for a constrained response.
Hypothesis: American and English style differences might account for variable usage of could-would-did and how-how-do-how did.
imho, parsing this sentence is beyond the current capability of grammar checkers.
cheers, Bill
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
modified 26-Jan-20 2:57am.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not that complicated. Everything from the "that" onward is the object of the verb "to know". The fact that it's a clausal object is immaterial.BillWoodruff wrote: imho, parsing this sentence is beyond the current capability of grammar checkers.
This and about 11% of all other sentences -- but I do so enjoy watching the poor dear tangle itself in knots, trying to cope.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: "that" onward
which that is that ?
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
That one there, that's spelled "that".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
which there is there ?
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
Where?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
It is rumoured that a teacher once remarked to a student's text containing two thats: "That that that that that refers to is not that that that that refers to!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the kind of nonsense, up with which I will not put!
-- Winston Churchill, in response to an accusation that he ended a sentence with a preposition.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I really like this one from Winnie, because it is also an example where the unjumbled phrasing is not even incorrect by the standards of idiots who want to apply the Latin rule on ending clauses with prepositions -- but the jumbled version is incorrect.
i.e. "To put up with" is a phrasal verb, so the clause "that I will not put up with" ends with a verb, not a preposition.
Moving "up with" breaks the verb (you can put words between the particles of a phrasal verb, but you can't change their order). "To up with put" makes no sense, except if used ironically, as Winnie did.
If you end a Latin clause with a preposition, it becomes nonsense, so the idiotic "rule" came from toffs studying Classics, who were told off when they directly translated English clauses into Latin, with prepositions at the end.
The rule they should have recognised and obeyed was "don't translate directly from one language to another".
"Put" is one of my fave phrasal verb roots:
• Put = "put"
• Put up = "give lodgings to"
• Put up with = "withstand"/"stand for"/"suffer"
It makes no logical sense whatsoever; cute as a button!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
 
I suspect that some of these rules were invented in order to separate the lower classes from those who went to the right schools. Only when the middle classes gained pretensions of gentility did these rules become common usage.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
"put up" can apply to gaming, or the act of decorating, or posting, and, "put up or shut up" has a similar meaning to "put up," but broader, imperative, use.
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, "put" is the everyman's everyword of phrasal verbs.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Checa lá meu curso , digite WPF e XAML deve ser o primeiro a aparecer wpf and xaml unleashed
|
|
|
|
|
Aqui, vamos!
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Le plume de ma tante est sur le bureau de mon oncle.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif) [^]
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
Vamos a la playa 
|
|
|
|
|
OH, OH, OH, OH, OH! 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
I translated your text with Google translate and found out that it is about an UDEMY course "WPF e XAML em PORTUGUÊS".
I think the problem that you have no subscribers is caused by the fact that it is written in portuguese which narrows down the audience, so I would advise to translate it into English.
But it may also be a question of time before you get subscribers, as your course is quite new.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that in english there was too many versions of the same course and the brazilian community in udemy is quite large. thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, forgot about the Brazilians, they are not to be underestimated indeed
|
|
|
|
|
So in my Rolex lexer reboot, I'm potentially adding a way to specify lexer rules using eXtensible Backus-Noir Form instead of regex (although you can also use regex)
My parsers already allow for this. But I'm thinking of including this feature in my lexer directly.
This creates a strange problem for me, wherein as soon as I add this feature my lexer documents fit the exact same format as my parser documents.
XBNF format.
So what?
Well, the what is that if you pass the same document to a parser that you pass to the lexer you'll get different results, and you shouldn't. You should get just the terminals rendered by the lexer generator. That way the parser can work with the lexer from the same spec document.
But if i pass one of these documents to my lexer, it will treat all of the elements as terminals! why would it not?
My options are to make a new file format specifically to distinguish between this one and XBNF, or to make Rolex only render parts of the XBNF document - the terminal parts. It's kind of counterintuitive that last bit, but it's the Right(TM) result.
*sigh*
Fortunately with the last option if you only use regex in it, none of the above matters. But if you start using BNF in it, it will get confused as to what's a terminal and what's not, forcing you to mark every terminal declaration with the terminal attribute.
I don't like that.
I might make a command line option to either force the document to be a lexer document, or to force it to be treated as a parser document.
This is confusing even to explain. There has to be a better way.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
BNF is a (data)normalization issue; how does this apply to lexers?
It has nothing to do with a regex. Thread carefully before you explain.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
