1) Do you have to understand every single word you read? or 2) are you the type of reader that enjoys new words here and there to allow room for thinking and imagination? for example if we look at the work of Lewis Carroll, Snark, it is an invented word but yet he wrote a whole story/poetry prose around and is meant to be a classic. so 1) Do you or should you allow for new words to invade your reading space, taking out of the confort zone? or 2)do you frown on it because it is not something you would consider?
As long as the context is there I can usually figure it out. If a particular word really strikes me I will look it up and save it for later use. Not sure if that answers the question but there you have it.
I'm a slow, visual reader. I have to scene the scene when I'm reading. I can usually use context clues to figure out new words, and if I like the new word enough, I might try to use it myself. I love the word snark.
what if a word is made up? like this: if I said supremacy say as the title of an article, then the next line said this is what a supremate is would you understand what I was hinting at or not? I agree it has that biting cruching feel to it when you say it. what does this mean?
If context there to aid, I don't mind new words. Hate when they don't have clues. I like big words. Different from every-day writing.
Even a made up word needs context or else it is just gibberish. This is why nobody questions what a bandersnatch or a jabberwocky is and even children can understand Dr. Seuss.
And that puts in a nutshell why one should make up words with great caution and a lot of context. That symbol is text speak and a great many people understand it - what happens if a writer makes up words on a whim and expects others to understand just because the writer does? Exactly what happened here - except they can't ask the author before they go on reading.
If the symbol is used in place of words, it's being used as a word. (And, after all, letters are merely symbols, and words groups of symbols). The point being that just because the author feels like making up a word doesn't make it understandable without proper and understandable context. And readers will end up just as confused as you are about the text speak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fantasy I didn't know what it meant either so don't feel bad. I thought it was fantasy stories written by authors who are high. Joking.
Nonsense words I don't mind, so long as they're in a nonsense context. Poems by Spike Milligan are a fantastic source for nonsense words and within this context, they're hilarious, because even though they're unfamiliar, they're not. As in: On the Ning Nang Nong Where the Cows go Bong! and the monkeys all say BOO! There's a Nong Nang Ning Where the trees go Ping! And the tea pots jibber jabber joo. On the Nong Ning Nang All the mice go Clang And you just can't catch 'em when they do! So its Ning Nang Nong Cows go Bong! Nong Nang Ning Trees go ping Nong Ning Nang The mice go Clang What a noisy place to belong is the Ning Nang Ning Nang Nong!! Plus, when he died, he had the words 'I told you I was ill' put on his gravestone, so extra points there. Conversely, when sci-fi authors make up daft-sounding names for things that have no context and we're left guessing, I respect them less.
not necessarily 'have to' in re 'every single word' though there aren't many that i don't... if one i'm not sure of leaves a sentence unclear and feel the need for more clarity, i'll look it up... i don't see the two as an 'either/or' issue, as i do enjoy coming across a new one now and then, so am bits of both... i have to admit that i didn't like the 'jabberwocky' piece and skipped the rest after reading only the first couple of verses, as it seemed irrelevant to the story... so i do to some extent, though i don't think of it as an invasion... and it has nothing to do with a 'comfort zone' of any kind... as for 'should' i don't see why it would be obligatory for anyone to 'allow' it... sorry, i don't get this question... i'd have no clue... which is why i questioned the word when you used it in another thread/post... do you mean 'hieroglyphs'?... can you imagine anthropologists a millennium or two from now [if humans still exist then] imputing religious/mystical meaning to ;-) and ;-( and and their ilk!?
mammamaia I meant hieroglyphs yes , I mispelt it again I cannot possibly imagine anthropologist doind any of that in the same that I do not expect them to take language for granted and rely on a symbol, because it is what is just a symbol hence the name. If men invented the alphabet to write and express themselves then the least you would expect themt to do is to look after it and use adequatly otherwise there is no point in starting anyhting.
I'm for both. Sometimes i have to read certain sentences twice or three times to understand them. It's quite funny, actually. I'm a prominent reader.
I cannot possibly imagine anthropologist doind any of that in the same that I do not expect them to take language for granted and rely on a symbol, because it is what is just a symbol hence the name. ...you don't seem to know that the egyptians [and the mayans] used hieroglyphs [= 'symbols'] as their written language... they did not have an alphabet... If men invented the alphabet to write and express themselves then the least you would expect themt to do is to look after it and use adequatly otherwise there is no point in starting anyhting ...yes, but if their 'alphabet' consists of symbols instead of the 'letters' you are familiar with, then they are using it 'adequately'...
"I see and what does it mean apart from a heart?" "That is a symbol like Hyroglyphy. a word is totally different. so no it is not the same. " "I'm a prominent reader." Amazing! This thread gets better and better.
I like looking up every single word I don't understand to try to add it to my lexicon of language. However, I sometimes have the tendency to speed read when I'm not enjoying the book particularly, which can make me miss stuff or end up at a point that I only 3/4's of the way understand what is happening.
