Back to LanguageTool Homepage - Privacy - Imprint

"wissen lassen" incorrectly underlined

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 http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Aeuszeres

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.

Hi,
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: http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Drum_und_Dran
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.
    http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Tripel_Groesze_Mathematik

  2. <> is marked wrong, although this is the valid plural of Universum
    http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Universum

  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.

Regards
Daniel

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:
http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Partikel_Teilchen

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.

@emperor, thanks a bunch for reporting those false alarms. Much appreciated!

You are very welcome, I really appreciate that my reports are being valued and used to improve LT!

Today, I let LT check some old mails and (while they cannot be corrected anymore ) I found a couple of false alarms. I’ll list them again with a simple example in which the error occurs.

  1. Es ist nicht schlimm, wenn <> von dem Apfel die Birne essen möchtest.
    LT believes “anstelle” comes from the verb “anstellen” although the adverb being used is “anstelle von” http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/anstelle_Adverb
  2. Es ist nachvollziehbar, dass du <<enttäuscht>> bist.
    In this case, LT believes that I incorrectly conjugated a verb (enttäuschen) again, although this time it’s an adjective (enttäuscht) wrongly classified as a verb.
  3. Falls dem so ist, können wir uns treffen und über <> reden.
    “Genaueres” is “substantiviert” but LT thinks it’s used as an adjective and therefore shouldn’t be capitalized.
  4. Erklärt mir kurz, weshalb ihr das <> wollt.
    In this case, LT believes “wissen” is “substantiviert” although it’s being used as a verb.

And one more thing about the English spellchecker: While I can fully understand that LT does not recognize technical terms such as “centroid”, technical terms that have become common in colloquial language should be included. For example “screenshot” is now included in several dictionaries.
http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/screenshot?q=screenshot


So I believe you should consider adding it.

That’s it. Thanks again!

Okay, I got one more:
The “Genitiv” case of “Limit” (in German!)–“Limits”–and the Plural “Limite” are incorrectly marked as wrong on languagetool.org
See also http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Limit

Thanks, these should be fixed now (will be live on languagetool.org tonight).

One month has passed again and I’m here to report again.

  1. LT does not know the noun “Bedacht” and thinks it is incorrectly capitalized.
    Er handelte mit <>
  2. LT incorrectly sometimes incorrectly believes that “dass” should be “das”
    Das Risiko, <> der Zug entfällt, ist gegeben.
  3. If “zu etwas führen” and “zu viel” cause two “zu” next to each other, LT complains about a word repetition.
    Falls dies <> viel Arbeit führt, …
  4. The Genus of “Schneeflocke” appears to be incorrect in LT.
    <>.
  5. LT does not recognize some plurals of some words it supports in English.
    Examples: indices (plural of index) and formulae (plural of formula)

Thanks again – and a happy new year!

Thanks, I’ve fixed 1) and 4). Could you report future issues at https://github.com/languagetool-org/languagetool/issues/332? That would make it easier for me to track all issues.