3 new "very large" English dictionaries are now online

users
#1

I just finished uploading the new dictionaries and edited the new NA-DVD 3.6 dictionary page.
http://libreoffice-na.us/English-3.6-installs/dictionary.html#english

en_CA - Canadian English - 674,277 words
kpp-canadian-english-dictionary-674277-word-list.oxt
[added 35,164 words]

en_GB - British English - 674,039 words
kpp-british-english-dictionary-674039-word-list.oxt
[added 34,923words]

en_US - American English - 797,865 words
kpp-american-english-dictionary-797865-words-list.oxt
[added 24,458 words]

#2

FYI, I think Tom has also indicated that these are also available on the extensions site.

Tom: Thanks for this as well as the work you do on the EN DVD. Awesome!

Cheers,

Marc

#3

Hi :slight_smile:
Thanks :D  I think you meant Tim@KrackedPress.  Tim's the one that really deserves the praise and +1 from me too :slight_smile:

Nicely done Tim! :slight_smile:
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#4

This is useless as a spell checker. It has both US and Canadian spelling for many words.
"o" vs. "ou", "-ise" vs. "-ize". Double l vs. single l when adding suffixes. Use of s or c in spelling.

Absolutely useless for checking the spelling of documents. A Canadian English dictionary should have only the correct Canadian English spellings.

#5

For now the 3 new versions of my dictionaries will be only found on the NA-DVD dictionary page.
http://libreoffice-na.us/English-3.6-installs/dictionary.html#english

In a few days or a week or so from now, I will go and wade through the process to upload the new versions to the
http://extensions.libreoffice.org/extension-center/american-british-canadian-spelling-hyphen-thesaurus-dictionaries
page. Right now, that page shows a warning that my extensions may not be still supported. Well I am still supporting them as well as I can.

The three dictionaries are created from lists of words that are separated into American English, British English, and Canadian English. The dictionaries have their versions of English, en_US, en_GB, and en_CA.

#6

A poster has stated that there may be problems with the Canadian dictionary. Something about some specific word spellings that they do not think is "pure" Canadian words, but American word spellings. For my part, I did not choose the words in each of the set of word lists. What I can say is that the words for the Canadian dictionary has come from sources that state that the words are Canadian words. The British and American words are from word lists that come from lists stating that these are British words and American words.

I never used the word "pure". I am referring to the standard Canadian spelling, not the alternate spellings some people may use. A spell checker is only of use if it gives the standard spelling for a word. Having many different spellings of a word indicated as correct renders it useless as a spell checker.

You need better sources.

I am not a authority in what is the differences between each of the versions of the English language. So, I look to other groups and organizations that know much more about these things than I do. If someone does not like the spelling words I use, please take my dictionaries and edit out the words they thing that are not words that are not "pure" English for their version of the language.

If you do not know what the standard spelling is for a version of English you have no business putting out a spell checker for that version.

Are you seriously suggesting that I go through 674,277 words and correct their spelling? That is what I use a spell checker for, and for doing that yours is useless

NO, I will not give out my resources or places where I get my word lists. Everyone can find my sources, if they look for them. They seem to have new ones every year or two, or so I have seen.

Since you do not give credit to your sources you are guilty of plagiarism.

#7

I believe that you really can't plagiarize language. These are just words.
They are common good (or "public domain", if you prefer more strict term).

But yes, not giving credit for sources seems not fair.
On the other hand, Tim ("webmaster") said that his sources are easily findable,
so maybe he does, after all, give credits?

#8

Since you do not give credit to your sources you are guilty of plagiarism.

I believe that you really can't plagiarize language. These are just words.
They are common good (or "public domain", if you prefer more strict term).

Every book, essay, article, etc. written is just words. Any dictionaries I have looked at are copyrighted, included the ones that are distributed in LibreOffice.

But yes, not giving credit for sources seems not fair.

And is contrary to the copyright on the sources.

#9

You cannot "own" a copyright on words or your language.

You copyright the order they are used in a document.

The published definition type of dictionaries copyright the text of their definitions, and not the words themselves. You copyright "War and Peace" but not the words used in that very large book. The authors of the books would be very put out if they have to get permission to use English words if a publisher of a definition dictionary could own the words in their books.

#10

Every book, essay, article, etc. written is just words.

Copyrighted are not words per se, but very specific order of these that creates
unique work. And, going further, ideas submitted in these words.
Or ideas in general, since they can be expressed through painting, music,
performance and other means.

Any dictionaries I
have looked at are copyrighted, included the ones that are distributed in
LibreOffice.

Still - this is unique work that is copyrighted, not language.
Unless there are certain mistakes copied, you can't really prove that
dictionary was "plagiarized". Take few dictionaries from different publishing
houses. There will be large parts that are exactly the same. Can one
publishing house sue other for "plagiarism"? None will dare. After all, they
both "plagiarized" large parts of some older dictionaries.

In printed dictionaries, there is also typographical layout that is
copyrighted. But this is not language.

Copyrighting words just does not make sense. And since words can not be
copyrighted, they can not be plagiarized.
It's unique work that can be plagiarized, but in regards of dictionaries
proving that something isn't unique work is almost impossible. After all, this
is just a list of words that people already use (does "prior art" ring a bell
here?).
And please don't confuse copyright with trademark. Common words may be part of
trademark.

#11

You have admitted taking word lists from multiple sources without giving attribution to the sources. That is plagiarism.

Your compilation of Canadian English words is useless as a spellchecker. Having both the standard Canadian English and US English variants of the spelling of a word show as correct is ridiculous and makes your lists useless.

As you said you are not a linguist. You ignorance of the proper compilation of a useful spell checker is obvious.

#12

Can you take this personal argument off the list, please?

You are wrong about what constitutes plagiarism, and this is now
completely off topic.

Thank you.

#13

Can you take this personal argument off the list, please?

It is not a personal argument. It is a matter of principal

You are wrong about what constitutes plagiarism, and this is now
completely off topic.

Taking someone's work without giving attribution for it is plagiarism. Period

That is the minor point about this miserable excuse of a spell checker.

The main point is that this word list is complete pile of shite and worthless as a Canadian English spell checker. I pity anyone who actually uses it and ends up using it. They will end up with a lot of misspelled words.

If some bloody wanker want to waste his time compiling a worthless compilation of words let him.

However, to pretend it is a usable spell checker for Canadian English is reprehensible. Any promotion of it as such should be expunged from all LibreOffice web pages, and it should be denounced on all lists and forums

Thank you.

You're not welcome.

#14

Can you take this personal argument off the list, please?

It is not a personal argument. It is a matter of principal

What principal?

You are wrong about what constitutes plagiarism, and this is now
completely off topic.

Taking someone's work without giving attribution for it is plagiarism. Period

I think you do not what plagiary is. It was always stated that the lists were compiled from a variety of unnamed sources. The original work is the location and compilation from these lists. The issue is not whether the lists are credited but what is the actual claim. that determines plagiary.

That is the minor point about this miserable excuse of a spell checker.

The main point is that this word list is complete pile of shite and worthless as a Canadian English spell checker. I pity anyone who actually uses it and ends up using it. They will end up with a lot of misspelled words.

The issue is what do the sources say having lived in the Toronto suburbs (Buffalo, NY) my observation was there were many American spellings used in informal documents. Official documents tended to follow more closely UK spellings than US.

#15

It is not a personal argument. It is a matter of principal

What principal?

Principle. Stupid typo.

Taking someone's work without giving attribution for it is plagiarism. Period

I think you do not what plagiary is.

I know what plagiarism is.

It was always stated that the lists were compiled from a variety of unnamed sources. The original work is the location and compilation from these lists. The issue is not whether the lists are credited but what is the actual claim. that determines plagiary.

Try using that argument in an university essay or an academic paper.

Most word lists I've looked at, including the LibreOffice spellcheckers, are copyrighted. An usual condition for the reuse of them is that attribution be given.

That is the minor point about this miserable excuse of a spell checker.

The main point is that this word list is complete pile of shite and worthless as a Canadian English spell checker. I pity anyone who actually uses it and ends up using it. They will end up with a lot of misspelled words.

The issue is what do the sources say having lived in the Toronto suburbs (Buffalo, NY) my observation was there were many American spellings used in informal documents. Official documents tended to follow more closely UK spellings than US.

No. The issue is what is the correct standard spelling for Canadian English. Some words follow the UK spellings, others the US spellings. And there are uniquely Canadian words.

#16

Hi :)  
Some very harsh criticism.  It's not difficult to get involved to help fix the minor issues so that everyone benefits from your skills and knowledge.

Obviously, personal attacks in public are much easier but could be seen as a bit cowardly and bullying.  Also this should be a family-friendly friendly place where people of all ages can comfortably ask questions and get involved so please can we tone-down the swearing a bit?

The difficult bit is doing the major amount of work in the first place and creating something that many people find incredibly helpful. 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#17

Can you take this personal argument off the list, please?

It is not a personal argument. It is a matter of principal

The way you are presenting this and attacking the author and the work
is not a matter of principle. You may delude yourself into thinking
it is, but your tone and words are extremely personal.

You are wrong about what constitutes plagiarism, and this is now
completely off topic.

Taking someone's work without giving attribution for it is plagiarism.
Period

Not at all. From Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1816):

PLAGIARISM. The act of appropriating the ideas and language of another, and
  passing them for one's own.
       2. When this amounts to piracy the party who has been guilty of it will
  be enjoined, when the original author has a copyright. Vide Copyright;
  Piracy; Quotation; Pard. Dr. Com. n. 169.

Compiling a list of words does not in any way, shape or form
constitute plagiarism.

Period.

That is the minor point about this miserable excuse of a spell checker.

This is not a matter of principle, it is your opinion, strongly worded
and quite offensive.

If you cannot tell the difference between a reasonable discussion and
a personal attack, perhaps you should find another place to rant.

Even if you have reasonable points, which I believe you do, your
presentation is offensive.

Thank you.

You're not welcome.

With that attitude, I suspect you are becoming less so here than you might like.

Back up, take a breath, and use rational, persuasive language instead
of insults. You will do much better.

MR

#18

It is not a personal argument. It is a matter of principal

What principal?

Principle. Stupid typo.

Taking someone's work without giving attribution for it is plagiarism. Period

I think you do not what plagiary is.

I know what plagiarism is.

No you do not! You are confusing citation with plagiary.

It was always stated that the lists were compiled from a variety of unnamed sources. The original work is the location and compilation from these lists. The issue is not whether the lists are credited but what is the actual claim. that determines plagiary.

Try using that argument in an university essay or an academic paper.

Except this is not an academic setting nor are the lists being published in an academic journal. Scholarly citation is used to show what the previous work has covered, to point possible weaknesses in methodology, gaps of knowledge, etc. so that other researchers can review the cited work and its relevance to the current research.

Plagiary is not the lack of citations but claiming the work of others as one's own. I can cite as much as I want and still commit plagiary - they are two separate and to large extent independent issues. In an academic setting both are critical but in a none academic setting citing prior work is often not a critical issue but plagiary is a major issue in either sphere.

Most word lists I've looked at, including the LibreOffice spellcheckers, are copyrighted. An usual condition for the reuse of them is that attribution be given.

I have no idea what the copyright status of the original works are and neither do you. Also, many people use Creative Commons (copyleft) to release works and the attribution requirements are determined by the author(s), some may not require attribution.

#19

Hi :slight_smile:
+1
Everyone should (imo) be entitled to their view.  Can we agree to disagree peacefully?  Perhaps we might be able to resolve some of the issues in future threads once we are able to cool off a bit and then later look at what really are the issues. 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile: