Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
@rkomar. You seem to be using the dictionary definition of books. The Oxford dictionary, for example, even limits the method of binding of the pages to glueing or sewing. Terms must evolve not only with usage but also with technology. The usage of the word "book" was not appropriated. It "evolved" to encompass new technologies which simply did not exist when the term was defined. The use of the term "real books" carries the implication that ebooks and audiobooks are not "real". However, you apparently accept that the usage of the term "books" has in fact changed to encompass ebooks. Whether such change is by way of evolution or appropriation would not seem to be relevant. Under this changed usage bound paper books are no more "real" than ebooks or audiobooks.
|
I can both acknowledge that the usage of the word "book" has changed while protesting that change itself. I don't like that the word has less meaning now than it used to; it seems to be a step backwards. Again, I'll bring up the example of a bound volume with four novels in it. Is it one book or four? It's hard to say with the new usage, but crystal clear with the old. Something has been lost.
I've also been trying hard to explain why saying that something isn't a "real book" isn't an insult, but it's falling on deaf ears. So be it, be insulted then. I'm giving up trying to keep you from that.