diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 4b51f1002..36573f3a0 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ You can disable any of the checks by modifying `.proselintrc`. | `garner.denizen_labels` | Calling people the right names | | `garner.illogic` | Avoiding illogical forms | | `garner.jargon` | Avoiding miscellaneous jargon | -| `garner.malaproprisms` | Avoiding common malaproprisms | +| `garner.malapropisms` | Avoiding common malapropisms | | `garner.many_a` | Many a singular | | `garner.misspelling` | Avoiding common misspellings missed by spell-check | | `garner.mixed_metaphors` | Not mixing metaphors | diff --git a/admin/communication/sources/garner.md b/admin/communication/sources/garner.md index 76d71b678..ceb1e8d30 100644 --- a/admin/communication/sources/garner.md +++ b/admin/communication/sources/garner.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ I'm Jordan Suchow, a cognitive scientist at UC Berkeley and a fan of your work Proselint scans prose for errors in usage and style. Our larger goal is to aggregate knowledge about best practices in writing and to make that knowledge immediately accessible to all authors in the form of a linter for prose. (The term "linter" is borrowed from computer science, where it describes a computer program that scans source code for syntactic and stylistic errors.) -In the process of building Proselint, I implemented several hundred entries from your usage dictionary. Proselint will notice, for example, when you compare an uncomparable adjective, employ the wrong denizen label, use gender-biased language, or use a needless variant of a word. We've also implemented advice from other sources – Steve Pinker, Mary Norris, Philip Corbett, Chuck Palahniuk, among others. Unlike existing tools, which typically focus on school-book grammar and have false-alarm rates so high that their advice can not be trusted, we started where you did: with redundancy, jargon, illogic, clichés, sexism, misspelling, inconsistency, symbol misuse, malaproprisms, oxymorons, hedging, apologizing, pretension, and more. This has made it possible to create a tool that is fast and precise. Better to be quiet and authoritative than loud and unreliable. We habitually test our tool against writing from well-edited books and literary magazines, where it is mostly silent, but sometimes has useful things to say. +In the process of building Proselint, I implemented several hundred entries from your usage dictionary. Proselint will notice, for example, when you compare an uncomparable adjective, employ the wrong denizen label, use gender-biased language, or use a needless variant of a word. We've also implemented advice from other sources – Steve Pinker, Mary Norris, Philip Corbett, Chuck Palahniuk, among others. Unlike existing tools, which typically focus on school-book grammar and have false-alarm rates so high that their advice can not be trusted, we started where you did: with redundancy, jargon, illogic, clichés, sexism, misspelling, inconsistency, symbol misuse, malapropisms, oxymorons, hedging, apologizing, pretension, and more. This has made it possible to create a tool that is fast and precise. Better to be quiet and authoritative than loud and unreliable. We habitually test our tool against writing from well-edited books and literary magazines, where it is mostly silent, but sometimes has useful things to say. We'd like your permission to use your advice in our tool. Can we? This would be less an endorsement than permission to attribute your ideas to you. Consider, for example, when we catch someone writing "Hong Kongian". We want to tell them that the preferred form is "Hong Konger", that you are the source of this advice, and that they can find more information by following a provided citation/link to the corresponding entry in your usage guide. diff --git a/proselint/.proselintrc b/proselint/.proselintrc index 150b4bb09..0a62450ae 100644 --- a/proselint/.proselintrc +++ b/proselint/.proselintrc @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ "garner.denizen_labels" : true, "garner.illogic" : true, "garner.jargon" : true, - "garner.malaproprisms" : true, + "garner.malapropisms" : true, "garner.many_a" : true, "garner.misspelling" : true, "garner.mixed_metaphors" : true, diff --git a/proselint/checks/garner/malaproprisms.py b/proselint/checks/garner/malaproprisms.py index 8acbed66c..fb240267e 100644 --- a/proselint/checks/garner/malaproprisms.py +++ b/proselint/checks/garner/malaproprisms.py @@ -19,8 +19,8 @@ @memoize def check(text): """Check the text.""" - err = "garner.malaproprisms" - msg = u"'{}' is a malaproprism." + err = "garner.malapropisms" + msg = u"'{}' is a malapropism." illogics = [ "the infinitesimal universe", diff --git a/site/_posts/2014-06-10-approach.md b/site/_posts/2014-06-10-approach.md index a803b8de3..95e84a2fc 100644 --- a/site/_posts/2014-06-10-approach.md +++ b/site/_posts/2014-06-10-approach.md @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ categories: proselint api

Is proselint yet another awful grammar checker?

No. Here’s why not:

    -
  1. proselint does not focus on grammar, which is at once too easy and too hard --- too easy because, for most native speakers, it comes naturally; too hard because, in its most general form, detecting grammatical errors is AI-complete, requiring human-level intelligence to get things right. Instead, we consider usage: redundancy, jargon, illogic, clichés, sexism, misspelling, inconsistency, misuse of symbols, malaproprisms, oxymorons, security gaffes, hedging, apologizing, pretension, and more.
    2. +
  2. proselint does not focus on grammar, which is at once too easy and too hard --- too easy because, for most native speakers, it comes naturally; too hard because, in its most general form, detecting grammatical errors is AI-complete, requiring human-level intelligence to get things right. Instead, we consider usage: redundancy, jargon, illogic, clichés, sexism, misspelling, inconsistency, misuse of symbols, malapropisms, oxymorons, security gaffes, hedging, apologizing, pretension, and more.
  3. proselint is precise. Existing tools for improving prose raise so many false alarms that their advice can not be trusted. Instead, the writer must carefully consider whether to accept or reject each change. We aim for a tool so precise that it becomes possible to unquestioningly adopt its recommendations and still come out ahead — with stronger, tighter prose. We track our false alarm rate and keep it low. Better to be quiet and authoritative than loud and unreliable.
  4. proselint defers to the world’s greatest writers and editors. We didn’t make up this advice on our own. Instead, we aggregated their expertise, giving you direct access to humanity’s collective understanding about the craft of writing.
diff --git a/site/_posts/2014-06-10-checks.md b/site/_posts/2014-06-10-checks.md index 396af2213..9b1001286 100644 --- a/site/_posts/2014-06-10-checks.md +++ b/site/_posts/2014-06-10-checks.md @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ Here is a list of what proselint checks. | `garner.denizen_labels` | Calling people the right names | | `garner.illogic` | Avoiding illogical forms | | `garner.jargon` | Avoiding miscellaneous jargon | -| `garner.malaproprisms` | Avoiding common malaproprisms | +| `garner.malapropisms` | Avoiding common malapropisms | | `garner.many_a` | Many a singular | | `garner.misspelling` | Avoiding common misspellings missed by spellcheck | | `garner.mixed_metaphors` | Not mixing metaphors |