tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post6456513597949328389..comments2024-03-14T10:31:26.918+00:00Comments on DCblog: On reading me loud and clearDChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10192779827863835310noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-44774209320302293912012-01-04T17:48:53.396+00:002012-01-04T17:48:53.396+00:00Sorry for the long delay, but I just found this bl...Sorry for the long delay, but I just found this blog.<br /><br />I believe that Mr. Bagnall may be the closest to the right answer here. Certainly "copy" refers originally to telegraphy, where the receiving party would literally copy the stream of dots and dashes to be translated to letters and words. I suspect "read"ing is not too much of a jump from that usage.louisvilliannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-314722837873268202011-11-15T21:04:56.086+00:002011-11-15T21:04:56.086+00:00'Read' isn't just a substitute for ...'Read' isn't just a substitute for 'understand', as the early tech manuals make it clear that the exchange is to acknowledge both signal strength (hearing) and message comprehensibility.<br /><br />I like the notion of linking this usage with earlier signalling technologies. That makes sense. But I haven't found any sources which explicitly make the link.DChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10192779827863835310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-12028390226447408522011-11-15T16:16:42.645+00:002011-11-15T16:16:42.645+00:00David:
I think that we can take the radio usage of...David:<br />I think that we can take the radio usage of "read" as an alternative to "understand." The widespread use of read, as in "reading the tea leaves," or "reading the expression on your face," would seem to bear this out.Marc Leavittnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-34842881476754194502011-11-15T15:07:36.692+00:002011-11-15T15:07:36.692+00:00David,
Might not the use of "read" be l...David, <br />Might not the use of "read" be linked to the means of sending messages via earlier signalling technologies. Not just those which were essentially visual (bonfires, semaphore, signalling mirrors)but also radio telegraphy? A written message had first to be transcribed by an operator into Morse, which the operator at the receiving station then transcribed back to be "read" by the recipient.John Bagnallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03889125624726979342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-38100150132356615162011-11-15T12:05:32.937+00:002011-11-15T12:05:32.937+00:00Perhaps "read" is not a substitute for &...Perhaps "read" is not a substitute for "hear" at all, but for "understand". In the early days of radio I can imagine that it was easy to hear something, but scarcely guaranteed to be understood clearly, and "read" became a short and crisp way of expressing the latter over the air.Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-86369069054974274842011-11-15T10:30:24.571+00:002011-11-15T10:30:24.571+00:00Of course, but any use of the verb could be given ...Of course, but any use of the verb could be given an interpretation in this way, not just the radio one, so we still need to explain why this specific usage developed.DChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10192779827863835310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-35794582630076218752011-11-15T09:32:59.204+00:002011-11-15T09:32:59.204+00:00It sounds too simple to be plausible, David, but c...It sounds too simple to be plausible, David, but could the expression also reflect that when we are reading something, we are also 'hearing' it in our heads as we translate symbols on the page into the sounds which comprise words?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13315146014179526480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-13244280446691721042011-11-15T09:20:34.181+00:002011-11-15T09:20:34.181+00:00I've come across both. I wasn't intending ...I've come across both. I wasn't intending my illustration to be exclusive. I reckon this is just the normal aspectual distinction between simple and progressive.DChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10192779827863835310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-47920532821715445332011-11-15T01:25:52.393+00:002011-11-15T01:25:52.393+00:00Any idea why the two expressions involve different...Any idea why the two expressions involve different verbal aspects?<br /><br />in <i>Do you read me?</i> there's Present Simple for a what I was taught to call a 'stative verb of inert perception'. So why don't we say <i>I read you loud and clear</i>?<br /><br />Could it be that the Present Progressive statement <i>I'm reading you loud and clear</i> is not so inert — more like <i>I can hear you and I'm listening</i>?David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.com