Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

twirlingpink t1_j6l15px wrote

Reply to comment by Tokenvoice in The 10 Inalienable Rights of the Reader by swedish_librarian

Language evolves. As a reader, you know that. To read something does not only mean to sit down and look at the words.

−8

BigTimmyG t1_j6le0ew wrote

That is LITERALLY what reading means… LITERALLY.

13

Tokenvoice t1_j6lgd8h wrote

I am unsure what you’re trying to say, are you implying that to consume books in a text based media that we need to have an entomology degree so that we can know the meaning of words?

Or are you saying that words don’t matter? Because that is rather wrong. Words have nuance to them. Landing safely and falling safely both have a common meaning of you made it to the ground unharmed. Yet to land safely means that you were in control, that you were in some way to control your decent. As were fell safely means you had no control. One implies skill the other luck.

You are correct that language evolves, for example the change of the use of the word present to next, but to use that argument to say that two things are the same is an odd thing to do. Notice how I used the word consume instead of reading or listening, the evolution would be to use that, not to say that reading a book is to listen to it.

10

oldadapter t1_j6n27h6 wrote

Would you object to a blind person who tells you they’ve read a certain book? It’s not that words don’t matter, it’s just the rules of language need a little give so it stays resilient as society changes.

1

Tokenvoice t1_j6ons95 wrote

No because you read brail, you don’t say I felt a good book the other day. But here’s the fun part you would assume that a blind person who said they read a book would mean it was in brail and not that they listened to an audiobook, which reinforces the point that listening to an audiobook isn’t the same as reading contextually.

And to reiterate my original point because we have moved a wee ways down in the conversation and I don’t want to be mistaken, it doesn’t matter so much how you consumed the book they are all valid for a conversation on the book.

2

oldadapter t1_j6p1z5i wrote

Sure but I’m just saying that ‘reading’ has this flexibility/broader meaning for only a few contexts, not as standard rule - but braille can also be one of these. If someone can read by touch in that context, there’s no good reason someone can’t also read by listening in another. I agree, in most cases choosing the most clear, unambiguous term is going to be best (especially to make that braille/audiobook distinction) - but if the medium isn’t the important part of the conversation/context - it seems unnecessary to pick someone up for saying something like “oh yes I read that last year too and found it tedious” if they in fact felt or listened to the text.

1

oldadapter t1_j6lmrn3 wrote

Correct, ‘reading’ now has both meanings.

My friend uses a wheelchair but will sometimes ‘walk’ to work instead of getting the bus. Physically walking, no. But in essence doing the same thing as most people do when they chose to walk to work, and any distinction isn’t necessary or helpful.

−7

k_pineapple7 t1_j6lx4oe wrote

Except it is a VERY important distinction if he literally cannot walk to describe it as "he's walking". Why call it something that it isn't?

9

oldadapter t1_j6mvdxr wrote

In most contexts yes, it’s important to make the distinction. But not every single one - which is the point on how the meanings of words can expand slightly. This is what my frienddescribes themself as doing, not as some fantasy of physically walking, but because there’s a more general/cultural meaning to the ideas of walking or going on a walk that is still essentially true, and being pedantic about how literally they use the words can sometimes be, at best, pedantic and, at worse, demeaning.

Another example that may be more relatable: If I read a rumor on a text message and then casually relayed that I had “heard” about it to a friend - am I lying or using an acceptable general use of ‘heard’? In casual conversation “read” might imply a more formal source, unless I specify I read in a text exchange with an acquaintance. But these expanded meanings let natural spoken language have these shortcuts built in.

1