"wissen lassen" incorrectly underlined

Hi everybody, I’m unsure if this is the correct way to pass something to the language maintainers, but there is a bug in German language checking that needs to be fixed:
“wissen” in “wissen lassen” is underlined as incorrect, although it is perfectly fine.
Example sentence that is perfectly fine:
“Ihr sollt mich das wissen lassen.”
And no, it is (also) correct to write it as two words according to the Duden:

Thank you very much for addressing this problem!

Thanks, this case is fixed now (the fix will be online at languagetool.org tomorrow).

Thanks a lot for that quick response and fix!
I hope that it’s okay to submit others like this, as I’ve got one more.
LanguageTool does not handle Studierender (singular) and Studierende (plural) correctly, although these are valid nouns that are quite commonly used at German universities.

That results in some erroneous complaints:
<> belegen diesen Kurs.
Auf Empfehlung anderer <> kamen sie hier her.
LanguageTool complains about the parts in brackets although there is nothing wrong with it.

Thanks, it has been fixed and will be online tomorrow.

Incredible, thanks a ton.
I just went over all long mails I have sent in the last month to see if there was anything more that LanguageTool erroneously marked as incorrect. I found one more: It seems „arrangieren“ is sometimes not correctly recognized as a verb.
In the example sentence of the Duden
“Die Sache lässt sich arrangieren” no errors are found (which is good).
When writing a similar question
“Lässt sich das <>?”
LanguageTool marks it as incorrect.
The same problem occurs if other constructions are used. E.g.
“Wenn ihr wollt, lässt sich das <>.”

Sorry that I did three posts for three issues. From now on, I’ll collect them and submit them monthly (if I find any ;)). And thanks again!

Thanks, I’ve added this to my TODO list, but this won’t be as easy to fix as the other issues.

Hi again,

since I just happen to have a bit time on my hands, I thought I’d report two issues of incorrect marking and one suggestion for detecting a common typo that I have found so far.

Incorrect marking 1) “Äußeres”, which is a valid noun, is marked as incorrect.
Example Sentence:
„Er hat ein gepflegtes <<Äußeres>>.“
See Duden | Äußeres | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition, Herkunft

Incorrect marking 2) Not sure if a new bug or just a different example for the bug I reported previously. It seems that LT generally assumes that adjectives with a definite article in front of them are „substanziviert“. Sentence:
Wenn ihr das so macht, sollte das <> (it says funktionieren should be capitalized, although it shoudn’t be).

Rule Suggestion) There already is a rule for the common typo “mit/mir”, but somehow this is not detected:
“Ich will mir dir reden.” (Should be “Ich will mit dir reden”)
I believe that two “Personalpronomen” in the “Dativ” case (mir/dir/ihm/ihr/uns/euch/ihnen/Ihnen) must not stand next to each other, so this typo could be detected this way. If I’m correct, this could also be a new rule to detect even more errors, e.g. the often-read horrendous mistake “lass mir dir sagen/zeigen/helfen/etc.”

As always, I hope I’m correct in everything I wrote, hope that it’ll be of use to LT, and am thankful to the LT maintainers.

Thanks, the first issue (“Äußeres”) will be fixed tomorrow. I cannot reproduce the second bug (“es funktionieren”) on http://languagetool.org. Are you using a download version that’s maybe not up-to-date? I’ve added “mir dir” etc. to my TODO list.

I apologize, when reading over the post before sending it I changed “das funktionieren” to “es funktionieren” because it sounded better and completely forgot that this would change the very issue I’m trying to report.

I edited the post few minutes afterwards to fix it and hoped that nobody saw the old version of it. But it seems you have (or received it via an e-mail subscription…).
Sorry about that.

Hi, I’m here again to report on things I encountered in the last month.

  1. “Innerem” and “Inneres” is sometimes not correctly recognized as a noun and marked as incorrect. This even happens if for an example from duden.de “mit völlig aufgewühltem Innerem”. This also happens if this example is completed to a complete sentence:
    “Mit völlig aufgewühltem <> erzählte er von den Geschehnissen.”
    Then one example for „Inneres“:
    „Dieser Block ist als <> einer Schleife nicht sinnvoll.“
    I believe this is correct (in the context of software development), although I wouldn’t bet my life on it.
  2. „Further<<>> research is needed.“ LT complains that a comma should be put after further but I am certain that this is wrong. This should be fixed as it is a quite common sentence.

I hope my feedback helps – and as always, thanks for your awesome work!

Thanks, both of these issues will be fixed in the next snapshot.

Hi, again a month has passed. I only found one bug:
The expression “Drum und Dran” is not correctly recognized and LT is saying that “Dran” should not be capitalized. This is incorrect: Duden | Drum und Dran | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition, Herkunft
Example sentence:
Er kümmerte sich um die Organisation mit allem Drum und <>.

As always, thanks a lot for your efforts.

Thanks, will be fixed tomorrow on languagetool.org.

Hi again,

this month I collected some more errors again.

  1. LT is complaining about wrong article in <>, but it is correct in mathematical context.
    Duden | Tripel | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition, Herkunft

  2. <> is marked wrong, although this is the valid plural of Universum
    Duden | Universum | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition, Herkunft

  3. When nominalizing two verbs in the following example, the second nominalization is not correctly detected.
    Das dabei Erlernte und <> würden sie niemals vergessen.

Furthermore, I believe that the following two sentences are perfectly valid although LT finds an error in them
4) “Diese vier Normen sind auch deshalb so wichtig, da <> besitzt.”
5) “Außerdem unterstützt <> xy bei xyz.”

Then there is one really that shows additional unwanted behavior.
6) … so spezifisch wie möglich, jedoch nicht <> als erlaubt.
Here, there is an endless “correction loop”, because if I let LT “correct” the mistake, it will replace “spezifischer” with “spezifischer” and thus not change anything, causing it to (incorrectly) mark it as a mistake once again.

Thanks for your efforts, I hope my reports are of use to this incredible project.

Thanks for the report, I’ve fixed 1, 2, 5, and 6. The other issues are more difficult to fix.


Hi. I didn’t find a lot recently but there is one issue that has been on my list of “to report” items for a while now. Example sentence:
“Dann ist es auf jeden Fall kein Problem, die Feier den Tag <<über zu organisieren>>.”

LanguageTool wants to change “über zu organisieren” into “überzuorganisieren” which is not a valid word.

Thanks again. LanguageTool is an awesome tool that keeps getting better.

Hi, thanks for your regular feedback. This issue has now been fixed.

Hi, it has been a while since my last monthly report, which is explained by a lack of new problems encountered - awesome.

But now I’ve got one again:
<> ist groß.
Partikel can (and definitely usually is in the context I’m dealing with) be “Neutrum”. This is also stated in the Duden:

That I am finding fewer and fewer bugs is really an incredible sign to me that LanguageTool has truely become a mature tool to work with.

Oops, I forgot the other one that I wrote down a while ago:
“Es ist klar, dass ich <<äußerst vorsichtig>> mit den Informationen umgehe.”
LanguageTool believes in this case that “äußerst” stems from the verb “äußern” although the word being used in simply the adverb “äußerst”.

Thanks for the report, I’ve fixed these two issues.