This page contains archived content from a LINCS email discussion list that closed in 2012. This content is not updated as part of LINCS’ ongoing website maintenance, and hyperlinks may be broken.
Return-Path: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id j0KGBdn24828; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:11:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:11:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <76B6066C.0613A11D.0004C68E@aol.com> Errors-To: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Originator: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk From: HthKar@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <email@example.com> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:871] RE: spelling - I'm shocked! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Status: O Content-Length: 938 Lines: 8 Colleages Re computer spell checks The grammar checks are worse. The microsoft software widely used in this country does not understand what I would call restrictive and non restrictive clauses, with the result that here all kinds of official publications, including (irritatingly) official publications emanating from most of the major agencies entrusted with the task of improving literacy, have commas after the word 'which' that (?!?) alter the meaning in a manner that the writer seems not to have intended. I recently read a paper on one web site which said it was 'for practitioners, who teach people to write' whereas what was probably meant was 'for practitioners who teach people to write'. Some colleagues of mine were recently instructed to 'Big up' certain aspects of their work when they were being observed. Is this a North American idiom? Can one use it in forms other than the imperative 'I bigged it up' etc..
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:45 EST