Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

oldadapter t1_j6lmrn3 wrote

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

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