Do we need a new word for "reading" on screens since it is a very different animal?

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

If THEY need a new word in THEIR jargon then it is a question for THEM to answer. All the different fields of science and engineering have their own jargon, but specialized jargon seldom makes it into the general language, probably for good reason. If it is beneficial for them they are probably bright enough to work it out on their own. That would seem to make this whole line of questioning moot, IMHO.

Good points here, Dave_S, good points all.

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by StaceyJMiller

I'd vote for "e-reading." To me, that says it all. Then again, my brain is slowly morphing into mashed potatoes from all the digital reading I've been forced to do now that the subscription costs of the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald have just about tripled....

Aha, our first positive response! Stacey Miller nominates "e-reading" as possible new term for screen-reading. I like it.

It's not easy swimming upstream against the current, but it's interesting nevertheless.

[badbob001]

Originally Posted by danbloom

Yes, badbob001, glad you asked the question. The benefit might perhaps maybe be for neuroscientists and scholars studying MRI brain scan images of reading on paper vs reading on screens, to see if different parts of the brain light up when paper reading and when screen-reading. In fact, some scientists are doing these tests now. Read Dr Maryanne Wolf's book titled "Proust and the Squid' or just google it to get a summary of what she has done so far. Dr Gary Small at UCLA is also involved in siimilar research.

Maybe people reading off the computer have more going on in their mind, such as checking IM notification in the corner, refreshing the mobileread website for an update, alt-tabbing to the email they left half composed, etc. With paper reading, it's pretty linear, unchanging, and patient. Might as well MRI someone reading the bible in church vs someone reading a novel on their lunch break.

I think people would not be so harsh to you if you kept your one topic to one thread instead of several attention-seeking threads. It also feels like you're a cook who brings a pot, have everyone throw in ingredients, and then you keep stirring things around but don't seem to contribute much of your own.

[danbloom]

badbob001, thanks for your note.

as for people being angry and harsh and defensive and dismissive, no, it started right away on the first thread with my first question, which people were not addressing, so that is why i started a new thread with a much better question posing the question about might maybe perhaps a new word be beneficial. When I first posed the question might such a word be needed, most people said no need. That is not what I meant, so i changed gears. Is that a crime in the USA now?

[ahi]

How about virtual reading? Or pre-beaming-into-your-brain-implant-virtually reading?

- Ahi

[danbloom]

Ahi, I like "virtual reading". Good suggestion.

But, uh, "pre-beaming-into-your-brain-implant-virtually reading" -- I am not sure about.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by danbloom

and dmikov, if you think i have an agenda, pray tell, tell me what you think or feel my agenda is. I for one would like to know. I in fact have no agenda. What on Earth are you talking about. My agenda? An agenda? Tell me what you think it is.

Promoting yourself and your blog. Your join date and activity you generate in 4 threads at once are very telling. Not really paid to do any investigation activity here, but if it looks like duck and quacks like duck...

Considering your threads are not news by any stretch of imagination and are extremely weak as commentary, their placement, quantity and your pushy presentation is what causing backlash, not the topic. Which pretty much is still summed up by NO.

[Lemurion]

I don't think there's a real benefit to a new word.

If I'm watching CNN and there's a headline ticker across the bottom I'm still reading the headlines - even as I watch the video footage and listen to the commentary. I still say I'm watching CNN even though I'm also reading and listening. I would also say I'm reading the headlines - even though it's on a screen and I'm doing other things at the same time.

Grouping actions doesn't change the name or nature of any of those actions. We'll use whatever word best fits the most common action.

Besides - when most people read something from a screen that involves scrolling clicking and other actions they're usually reading a web page - or to use another word that has gained common usage - they're surfing the web. However, when someone finds an interesting article while web-surfing they normally tell a friend to "read this."

[Hellmark]

Don't need a new word. You're still doing the same thing. Makes no difference where it is done. It is a verb, describing an action. You use nouns and adverbs to describe that action. Is it needed a special word to say you are reading a newspaper, or a book, or a magazine? No, people just say "I am reading a <insert object>"

[danbloom]

dmikov, all i can say if you got it all wrong. This is not about promoting me. This is not about promoting my blog. I always get those remarks from defensive, dismissive people. I don't have anything to promote. My blog is more of a personal file holder than a real blog, and i don't seek traffic at all. I have 225 blogs that serve as files for me at blogspot. No selling of anything. Promotiing myself? For what purpose? Have you never heard of a person sincerelyasking a question in order to learn from others' opinions?

Sheesh, man.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by danbloom

and dmikov, if you think i have an agenda, pray tell, tell me what you think or feel my agenda is. I for one would like to know. I in fact have no agenda. What on Earth are you talking about. My agenda? An agenda? Tell me what you think it is.

"Agenda" might not be the right word. But there isn't a word (that I know of) for "weird obsession about something that nobody else cares about that you will without doubt fail at but that you go on and on and on about oblivious to the fact that people at best think you are oddly eccentric and at worst think you are a nut."

I propose that we coin for that the word "Laureling," in honor of Laurel Kornfeld, who quickly shows up in every forum on the web that mentions "Pluto" and "planet" to give long rants about how no longer calling Pluto a planet is one of the worst crimes in the history of history.

Hi, Laurel! (She'll likely be posting in this thread as soon as this shows up in Google searches.)

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Grouping actions doesn't change the name or nature of any of those actions. We'll use whatever word best fits the most common action.

well said, Lemurion, and good point. I agree.

[Hellmark]

Danbloom, what is your obsession with creating new words for reading? Three threads within 24 hours, all on relatively the same topic.

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

"Agenda" might not be the right word. But there isn't a word (that I know of) for "weird obsession about something that nobody else cares about that you will without doubt fail at but that you go on and on and on about oblivious to the fact that people at best think you are oddly eccentric and at worst think you are a nut."

Well, that's a good way to put it, ardeegee. Not an agenda, thanks. But yes a [weird] obessession about something nobody else cares about...."

Yup, that just about sums it up. Eccentric? Yes. Nuts? Some might agree with you here. I say eccentric is a better word.

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Danbloom, what is your obsession with creating new words for reading? Three threads within 24 hours, all on relatively the same topic.

I'm on fire, what can I say? Blame Steve Jordan, he indirectly led me to this forum this morning. It's midnight here already.

And I like this forum, I like all your comments here. You are learning me, pro and con!