W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2000

reading vs. writing

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 11:38:03 -0400
Message-Id: <Version.32.20000902104441.04192100@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Cc: jonathan chetwynd <jc@signbrowser.org.uk>
In "reading, writing and 'rithmetic," 'reading' clearly refers to decoding
the results of writing.  But this is a caricature of curriculum, not a
definition of the English verb "to read."  In colloquial English in
general, we talk of reading palms or reading the tea leaves.  Many forms of
interpreting experience are included, not just decoding textually-recorded
language.

At 03:56 PM 2000-09-01 -0400, David Poehlman wrote:
>anyone have a dictionary handy?
> 

We all have a dictionary handy.

Quote:

1 a (1) : to receive or take in the sense of (as letters or symbols)
especially by sight or touch (2) : to study the movements of (as lips) with
mental formulation of the communication expressed ...

Found at:


http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=read

In the full dictionary entry there are many examples of qualitative
interpretation being termed 'reading.'  I stopped the quote at "reading
lips" because the general meaning stated to cover this example seems to
include animations just fine.

In fact, we talk of instruments taking a reading.  What is interpreted in
reading can be direct experience.  It need not be an utterance, reflecting
another's prior interpretation.  What does a radiologist do with the
analog, film-image X-rays?

Al
Received on Saturday, 2 September 2000 11:23:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:49 GMT