What is a "Book" now?

[darryl]

The word "Book" is defined (so far as relevant) in the Oxford Dictionary as follows:

A written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers:
a book of selected poems

From http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...n/english/book

This definition is clearly outdated. It has manifestly failed to keep pace with usage and technology. Not only does it fail to encompass ebooks or audiobooks but it excludes any pages bound other than by glue or sewn. Personally, the existence of ebooks simply reinforces that I have always regarded the book as being the content and not the container, though there was little need to even think about this for much of the time I have been reading.

So to my question for discussion. What is the current meaning of the term "Book". Clearly the written or printed aspect of the Oxford dictionary definition must go, as must glued and sewn and bound. Pages are also probably no longer appropriate. This leaves us with a possible starting point of a work if we are to retain any aspect of the previous definition.

Perhaps it could be as simple as keeping the existing definition but with a new limb along the lines of:

A work capable of being contained in a book but contained in some other form such as a computer file.

I don't pretend to know the answer but would be interested in comments.

[Luffy]

As long as the word e-book is in usage, the term 'book' will have a limited, and as you say it, outdated definition. Same goes for audiobook. In fact, 'audiobook' is very far from being accepted as a 'book' compared to 'e-book'.

[meeera]

Most of the definitions I looked at were twofold: firstly, the physical object, and secondly, a literary composition (and then some other more minor definitions). It's really not that complicated. Lots of words have more than one meaning. Some people here get a little too rigid about "the way I use the word is the one and only true meaning". That's not how language works.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by meeera

Most of the definitions I looked at were twofold: firstly, the physical object, and secondly, a literary composition (and then some other more minor definitions). It's really not that complicated. Lots of words have more than one meaning. Some people here get a little too rigid about "the way I use the word is the one and only true meaning". That's not how language works.

To me, a "book" is many things. I call all of my e-readers "books" (but not my tablets--while I may read on a tablet or phone (or computer) in a pinch, those are mostly used for other things.) I also call the things that my e-readers contain "books". I also call the things in my bookshelf that are made of paper "books".

To me, a "book" is both the container and the contents. Some books are/contain short stories, some novels, some biographies, some are non-fiction books that are/contain recipes, and lessons, and reference material.

Someone else's definition may be slightly different...I don't worry about that. If I talk about my book and I'm referencing my Kindle, people usually know what I'm talking about. If they don't, I explain it to them. If they still want to argue about it, I walk away. Life is too short to argue about the definition of a book.

Shari

[Cinisajoy]

Here is a nice search.
https://www.google.com/search?q=book...obile&ie=UTF-8
Make of it what you will.

And as to word meanings: I own two dictionaries that the only definition for gay is happy.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by Luffy

As long as the word e-book is in usage, the term 'book' will have a limited, and as you say it, outdated definition. Same goes for audiobook. In fact, 'audiobook' is very far from being accepted as a 'book' compared to 'e-book'.

IMHO Audiobook is a contraction for "Audio of a Book"
The reading is of the written word (with embellishments) .
Whereas the (radio)play, movie are more interpretations (sometime very loose) of the work. So much so, that there is usually a credit for the screen/play writer following the original author.


OTOH e-book versions carry most of the attributes of there paper siblings: Fonts, text, fleurons, Chapter sections, a similar blocked layout. So much so, that many could be sent directly to press and would be usable , being only cosmetically different.

[fjtorres]

Technically speaking, the definition quoted above is for the Codex variety of book.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex

Before AD300 the variety of book in most common use was the scroll. Since it took the codex 600 years from introduction to domination there must've been some serious resistance to the more expensive format despite its increased convenience. I'm guessing it took the invention of the bookmark to convince the last holdouts. Or a military expedition.

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by meeera

Most of the definitions I looked at were twofold: firstly, the physical object, and secondly, a literary composition (and then some other more minor definitions). It's really not that complicated. Lots of words have more than one meaning. Some people here get a little too rigid about "the way I use the word is the one and only true meaning". That's not how language works.

Exactly. The OP conveniently ignored the second definition from his own link.

[cfrizz]

My books are my books whether they are paper or ebooks, they are all just books to me.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

Exactly. The OP conveniently ignored the second definition from his own link.

No. I simply did not think it relevant to this discussion, as it is somewhat circular (ie; intended for publication as a "book"). It does not seem to embrace ebooks or audiobooks.

[Sweetpea]

I'm a computer gamer. And right now I'm playing a game called Deus Ex. It plays in the near future, a bit of a distopian world. They have the most awesome ebooks there (and monitors and TV's!), some sort of glass/plastic plate, completely transparent, which becomes opaque when there's current going through them.

But, after hacking a PC, I came across this mail. And I wonder, will that be the future of bookstores?

[GERGE]

My dictionary of choice is Collins, it defines book in the second definition as "a written work or composition, such as a novel, technical manual, or dictionary". Pretty good, all other meanings are listed too.

[Tarana]

A book can either be the writings of an author or the container where the words are located. In other words, if I refer to the book, Jurassic Park, I am referring to the writings of Michael Crichton as contained in the container of either a paper book, ebook or audiobook AS OPPOSED to the screenplay, which is an adaptation (even if he wrote it, as is the case of some of his works). Audiobooks of today are unabridged, so contain the same words even though those words may be performed. However, the older definition - that of a hardcover or paperback, would still be a noun that describes two of the containers.

I think this is how dictionaries will eventually update their entries. Perhaps modifiers will always be used, but so many already are referring to books for all the formats, I don't think it will be required unless it is condensed or abridged.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I'm a computer gamer. And right now I'm playing a game called Deus Ex. It plays in the near future, a bit of a distopian world. They have the most awesome ebooks there (and monitors and TV's!), some sort of glass/plastic plate, completely transparent, which becomes opaque when there's current going through them.

But, after hacking a PC, I came across this mail. And I wonder, will that be the future of bookstores?

Oh Deus Ex was a game I always wanted to play. It's nice to come across someone who has.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by meeera

Most of the definitions I looked at were twofold: firstly, the physical object, and secondly, a literary composition (and then some other more minor definitions). It's really not that complicated. Lots of words have more than one meaning. Some people here get a little too rigid about "the way I use the word is the one and only true meaning". That's not how language works.

Nope. Language is organic. For example the word "conversation." Now days we think of it as referring to what happens when two people talk to one another, but back when King James gave order for a new updated translation of the Bible the word conversation meant the way someone conducted themselves. What they did, how they did it, etc. The word is still spelled the same but the meaning has vastly altered over the last 405 yrs (it was begun in 1611). The only way for a language to become fixed in meaning is for it to no longer be spoken. Like Latin. While it is still spoken in a limited sense it doesn't change like English has since 1611. It's used in the sciences, by Dr's and by churchmen, and that's about it. Though at one time it was the big language of culture.