|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Today messages [message #482241 is a reply to message #482237] |
Wed, 10 November 2010 09:40   |
 |
ramoradba
Messages: 2457
Registered: January 2009
Location: AndhraPradesh,Hyderabad,I...
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks for the comformation
Edit :changed fro to for
But this spell checker does n`t showed any error
How does this spell check works? It does n`t show any error for words "fro" and "for"
sriram
[Updated on: Wed, 10 November 2010 09:44] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Today messages [message #482249 is a reply to message #482241] |
Wed, 10 November 2010 10:15 |
Frank Naude
Messages: 4581
Registered: April 1998
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The user control panel is now back.
The spell checker seems to work. However, I'm not sure why if doesn't work for "fro". Too short maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Today messages [message #482253 is a reply to message #482249] |
Wed, 10 November 2010 10:24 |
 |
Barbara Boehmer
Messages: 9100
Registered: November 2002
Location: California, USA
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Frank Naude wrote on Wed, 10 November 2010 08:15
The spell checker seems to work. However, I'm not sure why if doesn't work for "fro". Too short maybe?
It only checks spelling, not grammar. "Fro" is a legitimate word. For example, "to and fro" means "back and forth", so saying that someone was "pacing to and fro" would be the same as saying someone was "pacing back and forth". If you check what Michel Cadot posted, I believe you will find that it confirms the same.
|
|
|
|
] 
Blog
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
).