How to tell a but from a butt - but...

It is difficult to adequately proofread your own writings. The mind and the eye are so interconnected that, when the document is re-read by its author, writing errors are often mistaken to be perfectly correct. Authors probably “see” what they wrote earlier through what might be called “the mind's eye” instead of being eye-to-mind processed anew. What is seen is really what the mind remembers intending to write and not what the eye now sees. Writers, all, have experienced this. Even so, writers can increase their error-finding rates while doing their own proofreading of documents they produce.

In writing, there are obvious errors and errors that are more subtle. As strange as it may seem, even the obvious errors – things like misspellings – can look like perfection when an author reviews his or her own writings. This is compounded for writers of English language documents by the fact that some words may be correctly spelled but are incorrect in saying what the writer wanted said. For example, “it's” and “its” have the same sound when spoken, but they mean different things. This is made all the more difficult by the first example, it's, using the “possessive” apostrophe while the second example, its, does not. The first “it's” means “it is,” but the second “its” means that “it possesses.” Ah, that's English language for you, wherein “that's” does not own or have English language but, rather, that is the language. Such errors, when they occur, are exceedingly hard to catch when the author attempts solo-proofreading, but there are some things that can be done to improve the odds.

Unless there is some sort of tremendous rush to publish the writing, send the letter, submit the homework assignment, or the like, simply set the document to one side for a time – like for a day or two at least. The chances are reasonable that the mind (memory) and the eye will lose their reading coordination. That makes such “sound-alike” errors more likely to stand out on subsequent review.

Wrong word-right sound errors are virtually impossible of recognition by even the best of the spell-check facilities of computer word processors. If you spell “it's” or “its” correctly the spelling checker will smile and pass them right on through, undetected. If they were spelled as “at's” or “ots” the proofreader's job is greatly eased because the errors will be pointed out by the computer program. That is nice, but it is not what we are considering here. “Deer” and “dear” are not catchable by the spelling checker, nor are “sweet” and “suite.” Computer programs don't think. You do, and therein lie a lot of the problems writers have when proofing their own writings. (Right there, with "lie," we have one word with at least three meanings, none of which is the same as the meaning of "lye," another word that does sound the same but is spelled quite differently.)

If you must do your own proofing and editing, errors of words spelled correctly but which do not mean that which is desired, are easier to spot if the writing is set off to one side for later review.

Even when the writer has grossly misspelled some words, resting the writing for a time is the smart way to go about catching errors. Here, though, computer spell-check software can be of enormous help. Even writers whose spelling is close to impeccable can benefit by running their writing through a capable spell-check program. This is all the more so in that some of those computer programs also have some ability to consider certain grammatical aspects of a writing. For example, partial sentences (fragments) and various unusual (if not truly erroneous) usage can often be spotted. Using a competent spelling checker should always be one step to be taken by the writer, typically best undertaken immediately upon conclusion of the writing task.

Here is another interesting and useful proofreading method with which a writer can again employ the computer. It is a way, somewhat on the order of allowing time to intervene between completing a writing and proofreading it, but this can be done without the wait. “Read” the writing with your ears instead of with your eyes. To do that, the writer can enlist the aid of a friend to read the piece while listening to the words and their flow – the grammar of it. When the writer hears something not appropriate, it can be noted and corrected.

Writers do not always have a friend standing around to be helpful as a reader-reciter. Fortunately there are computer programs that can be prevailed upon to be standby friends for this task. These programs are easy enough to use, but it is of some importance to be selective as to which programs are used for this sort of thing.

Here are several of the programs I have on this computer, programs I use on occasion for help in proofreading my own writings:

“WordRead-2” - human voice, available from Claro.com (commercial software)

“RealSpeak” - human voice, available from Serif.com (commercial software)

“eSpeak” - computer-synthesized voice from SourceForge.net (free, open source software)

These programs can all be used to audibly read computerized writings through a computer's sound system. Input can be by way of “cut and paste,” section “highlighting” or whole-file designation. Various “voices” for the read-back can be selected – male, female, U.S.-accent, English-accent, and so forth. Reading speed can also be varied according to desire, and both mono- and stereo-playbacks can be used. I have discovered that the “eSpeak” program makes use of its own computer-synthesized voices (10 of them) and allows the user to select voices from my Claro and Serif programs as well – a pleasant surprise.

Nothing is perfect, but if a writer has to proofread a writing, particularly one written by that writer, it makes the job easier and more successful if good tools can be put to use in the process. Those tools include word processing spell-check software, resting time for the writing before proofing, collaboration by an associate who reads the writing out loud to the writer, and computerized audible reading of the item. Combining all of these tools will probably help most of all. Even so, it is always the best of good practice for a writer to enlist the practiced help of a “sharp” proofreader-editor who should not have read the article ahead of time.