This is pretty straight forward right? Someone else is reading the book to you, like the difference between playing a song on an instrument or having it played for you.
Oh man. But… there is no singular authority on what a word means right? Oxford dictionary, Miriam Webster, etc etc. The universal definition of “read” does not require one to visually absorb information. How could it? Usually most definition revolve around either seeing and interpreting symbols or gaining information through symbols. One can “read lips,” there is an example where there aren’t symbols unless you count lips as symbols- but there is a visual component. Ok. You can read braille right? Well- there are symbols, but no visual component. So we know reading doesn’t have to requiring looking at something, and reading also doesn’t require symbols- OR- those symbols merely have to be some recognizable component capable of coding and transmitting ideas. By definition we can say that individual sounds are symbols.
Therefore we can in theory say that the act of deciphering information from sound could be called reading. Let’s look at another example of the word- one can “read the mood.” A mood is not a tangible thing. There can be visual cues to mood, but “reading” mood or “reading” a person etc. are as much about sound, smell, and other sensory cues (remember that humans have far more than 5 senses- not in some new age hippy way- scientifically. We sense the passage of time or some aspect of it, we sense many things…)
So of course I can refute the “you can’t say… XYZ” premise simply by responding that you can say anything you want so long as you can speak, that doesn’t mean what you say is true or correct or kind or anything- but you CAN say it. That’s a bit too literal though in this case, so with the pieces we have so far we can say that linguistically and within the bounds of some version of the definition of the words and concepts from the prevailing recognized dictionaries of modern..
.. English- you CAN actually say that you have “read” a book on tape. It is accurate but not precise. So- say that you meet a special someone and your first meeting they open a door and break your tooth. A rough start, you fall in love, have lots of sweet moments, months or years later they ask you to marry them and you agree. You’re talking about the engagement with friends later who ask if they were scared to propose. They jokingly say: “I was scared they’d say no and I have to break the rest of their teeth to get them to say yes!” Everyone laughs. You get married. You meet another couple and they ask how you ended up married. You say: “He slammed a door in my face and broke my tooth then asked me to marry him and said if you said no he’d have to break all your other teeth.
That account sounds pretty bad. Abusive. Nothing about it is false. It is true. It is accurate to what happened. It is not precise. It fails to convey the specific meaning and context and a compete picture of events- there is a lot of room for the audience to misunderstand. But you can say the story that second way and tell no lies or give any misinformation.
It is more precise to say you have listened to a book on tape or that you have had a book on tape read TO you. These responses are accurate and contain the precision to avoid ambiguity. In English, as is true of many languages, words can have more than one meaning. It is not extremely common to hear the term “read” used for listening- but nothing inherent to the word makes it not applicable to be used in that manner, and we DO use it in several common ways as my above examples show which utilize alternate meanings of the word, it’s just we are most used to the word being only used outside of its most common meaning in specific…
.. cases. It sounds odd to hear it used in similar context but in a way that is uncommon. Consider that there are many ways to greet a person, many words or phrases that can be said to mean some version of “greetings” such as: “Hello,” “What’s up” “Hey” “Hi” “Yo” “Ay” “What it is?” “How are you?” “it’s been awhile” “good to see you again” Now- consider you are teaching English to a non native speaker who asks how to greet someone. What word(s) do you teach them if you can only teach one greeting in a “crash course”?
Each of those greetings can come off differently. Some sound dated depending on your age, some are more formal than one might use around peers and some are too informal for most people to use in every situation. Most people probably shouldn’t meet an important client or interview for a job or meet their partners parents and open with “how’s it hanging?”
And when we examine some of these from the perspective of a non English speaker- how is “How are you” or it’s variants a greeting? You’re asking how they are, but in countries like America, it’s a pleasantry not an actual question. It’s the same as saying “hi” more or less. The classic non English example is the Hawaiian “aloha” or the Italian Ciao. France has “salut” any of which can (in theory) be used as a greeting or farewell. Now there is more to that but I won’t go too deep into linguistic specifics of three different languages for something not germane to the topic. The point is that you generally know when someone is saying hello or goodbye by context at least even if they don’t use a longer phrase using those words. In the most technical sense- “Aloha” does not translate to “hello” or “goodbye.” It can have several meanings but is often USED as a greeting or parting.
If your familiarity with the word ends at “hello” or “goodbye” you might find yourself confused hearing the word used in any other way. Likewise- if you were to look up literal translations of “aloha” and think that you could simply substitute “aloha” for the English equivalent of any of those words- you would likely have some trouble communicating because even if in theory the definition was the same- that isn’t the common use necessarily. Of course- the definition of words is fluid. Dictionaries don’t technical define words, they catalog their usage. Meaning that words in most all languages can be changed by use. Some languages are more resistant to changes than others and some are more fluid than others. English is a very fluid language. Words can change meaning radically in decades or even years. Dictionaries then change their contents to reflect use.
So in that sense, if it is popular usage to say that one “read” an audio book- then it would be inarguably correct to say one read an audio book. Well…. Not inarguably- because it’s fluid. If one wanted to argue it was not correct and one could change the popular usage so people didn’t say “read an audio book,” then one could become correct. One example of English fluidity most English speakers become familiar with around elementary school is the term “gay.” “Gay” essentially in simple terms means “happy.” Old books and films and poems and such would have characters saying things like “I’m gay” or “you make me gay” “it’s sweet to be gay” and such.
To a modern reader the term “gay” is most closely and almost exclusively used to define sexuality- a person who is homosexual, or in some circles specifically homosexual men.
So saying that you cannot say you “read” an audio book is a bit like saying you cannot say you are “gay” just because you are happy. By definition the term fits and it is not technically incorrect, by usage the use of “gay” to mean “happy” is, at least in American English, quite antiquated and uncommon. If you say you are “gay” most people will assume you are homosexual or making a very worn out and poor joke- but it wouldn’t be “wrong” linguistically- just an odd choice.
Oh man. But… there is no singular authority on what a word means right? Oxford dictionary, Miriam Webster, etc etc. The universal definition of “read” does not require one to visually absorb information. How could it? Usually most definition revolve around either seeing and interpreting symbols or gaining information through symbols. One can “read lips,” there is an example where there aren’t symbols unless you count lips as symbols- but there is a visual component. Ok. You can read braille right? Well- there are symbols, but no visual component. So we know reading doesn’t have to requiring looking at something, and reading also doesn’t require symbols- OR- those symbols merely have to be some recognizable component capable of coding and transmitting ideas. By definition we can say that individual sounds are symbols.
So of course I can refute the “you can’t say… XYZ” premise simply by responding that you can say anything you want so long as you can speak, that doesn’t mean what you say is true or correct or kind or anything- but you CAN say it. That’s a bit too literal though in this case, so with the pieces we have so far we can say that linguistically and within the bounds of some version of the definition of the words and concepts from the prevailing recognized dictionaries of modern..
It is more precise to say you have listened to a book on tape or that you have had a book on tape read TO you. These responses are accurate and contain the precision to avoid ambiguity. In English, as is true of many languages, words can have more than one meaning. It is not extremely common to hear the term “read” used for listening- but nothing inherent to the word makes it not applicable to be used in that manner, and we DO use it in several common ways as my above examples show which utilize alternate meanings of the word, it’s just we are most used to the word being only used outside of its most common meaning in specific…
Each of those greetings can come off differently. Some sound dated depending on your age, some are more formal than one might use around peers and some are too informal for most people to use in every situation. Most people probably shouldn’t meet an important client or interview for a job or meet their partners parents and open with “how’s it hanging?”
To a modern reader the term “gay” is most closely and almost exclusively used to define sexuality- a person who is homosexual, or in some circles specifically homosexual men.