I'm surprised no one else posted about this.
I checked it myself and Word says it's ok.
LINKY (as yes, I know that LINKY is not a word)

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

Years ago, when Word first included a grammar checker, I ran the intro narration to Star Trek through it.

It told me that "Where no man has gone before" was "gender exclusive" and suggested "no person" instead, but did not tell me that "to boldly go" was a split infinitive.

Thusly, I gave up on it right away, and have never really used it.

Hmm. I wonder if it still does that . . .

[Edit: Just tried it in MS Word 2002. It tells me there's nothing wrong with it at all, now]

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

The surprise is that people are surprised about this. I figured out a long time ago that Words' grammer checker would have to improve by several orders of magnitude to SUCK.

__________________
It's just one of those damn things of which there are many few. -- Dan Blocker

Run this through:

Mine says it's okely-dokely.

I'm not trying to be politically incorrect, but don't both of those sentences sound like bad-Hollywood-1950s-Indian-trying-to-talk-like-white-man?

IMHO, Microsoft in heep big trouble with grammer check.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

Well, first as a student of Linguistics I would never even consider using a computer grammar check, for no grammar has been fully analised, let alone programmed into MS Word. No computer is capable of analysing human language grammar. It's too complex.

Speakers of English are still indoctrinated to believe that "split infinitives" are a mistake? I read a lot about those fake rules that teachers invent to justify their own existence, but the "don't split the infinitive" 'rule' rivals with the "don't end a sentence with a preposition" "rule" as the two most absurd and annoying products of prescriptive grammar dementia!!!!

Right on, brother!

Split the infinitive by all means as I find this often adds a poetic lilt to a narrative. However, I am not so sure that ending sentences with a preposition does anything other than make the writer sound like the toughest 3 years of their life were those in 5th Grade......

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

The anti-split infinitive rule, no matter what, is a rule "up with which I cannot put" :P

So AGN you would say/write "this is something about which I can't do anything" instead of "this is something I can't do anything about"?????

That's a pretty tough standard to live by. And after all, what are you afraid of? These picky rules are just not worth worrying about.

I think it depends on the sentence, really. Obviously "where you at?" isn't the best sentence, but for some reason ending sentences with prepositions in English sounds okay a lot of the time. Other languages, not so much.

No, no. It's "after all, of what are you afraid" and "about these picky rules are not worth worrying"

"Where you at?" sounds bad because it's either slang or a "non-standard" dialect. In Standard American English, the "at" in that sentence is superfluous, not just in the wrong place (and of course the verb is missing).

The similar construction "Who are you with?" sounds fine to me. "With whom are you?" sounds ludicrous.

As I said, that's a pretty tough standard by which to live! For what did they make all these rules, anyway? Trying to follow them all is more pain than that to which I want to subject myself! #-o

WordPerfect says the sentence is incorrect. I guess they have a better grammar checker.

So tell me, what is the difference between "it seems wrong" and "it needs clean"?

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

"Seems" is a linking verb, so it gets followed by a subject complement, in this case an adjective. "Needs" is a transitive action verb, so it must take a direct object, which must be a noun or something that can act as one---not the adjective "clean". "It needs cleaning" is correct because "cleaning" is a gerund and thus functions as a noun.

I am at a loss to explain "It needs cleaned", however, which is perfectly normal usage in some North American dialects.

But, "it seems to be wrong" and "it needs to be clean" are both correct.

Also, both wrong and clean are nouns and verbs. (one sense for clean as a noun)

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

The verb "seem" can get an adjective (it seems clean) and a "to+verb" complement (it seems to fall).
The verb "need" can get a verb complement (with or negated also without "to" = "he needs to clean" and "he needn't rise") or a noun phrase complement "he needs a clean room".

It's like chemistry - each word in each human language has certain "chemical properties" that enable them to be linked with certain kinds of complements but not others.

In that case you're using an infinitive phrase. Infinitives can act as nouns, adjectives, or adverbs. In "It seems to be wrong" the infinitive phrase acts as an adjective, while in "It needs to be clean" it acts as a noun.
It's irrelevant that these two words can be verbs, and that wrong can be a noun. In this case it is an adjective. As for clean as a noun, I haven't heard it used that way often, and never without an article. It's actually not quite possible to tell which part of speech it is in "It needs clean", since it does not fit into any normal syntactical structure when used that way.

Facile comparisons won't get you very far in grammar. "I'm going to school" and "I'm going to die" are not analogous constructions.