I run across this occasionally, and I never know whether to pronounce it like “red” or “reed.” I could see it going either way:
“The previous passage should be read the following way…” (conditional perfect aspect - rhymes with “dead”)
or
“I intend for you to read that passage in the following way…” (infinitive - rhymes with “knead”)
similarly
“Please read that passage the following way…” (second person present - also rhymes with “knead”)
I’m looking for a GQ answer, but if none exists, I will gladly accept IMHO ones. Apologies to any Belgians. Especially if any of them can answer the question or correct my verb classifications.
I’ve always read it as “red,” m’self, but have had the same doubt as the OP. Using the imperative seems impolite, whereas {red} is much nicer in character: “He was from Michigan ({red}: intelligent).” Whereby {red} is direction, “that’s read as…”.
I’ve always taken it as “red” myself, with no doubt, not for any particular reason except that I take it as an abbreviation of “This phrase is read as…” or “This phrase is to be read as…”, but the evidence is that overwhelmingly, people use (and thus probably intend, if the thought comes before their mind) “reed” (analogous with, as pointed out above, “see”).
I think I’ve actually tried to find information on this construct before, with little search engine success. Are you saying it’s easy to find examples of this use in the wild, or easy to find pages describing this use? If the latter, could you point me towards some?
“To read” is being used in different ways in those sentences, Balthisar. (English really needs a better infinitive form. Spanish with “leer” is much more elegant than clunky ol’ “to read”.)
He was from Michigan (read: intelligent).
Here it’s imperative. The reader is being told to read into the matter, look between the lines – not that “Michigan” is said the same as “intelligent”. The sense of the sentence is lost if “read” functions as an adjective. You generally don’t see “read” used in that non-literal, metaphorical sense as an adjective.
That’s read as . . .
Here, it’s being used as as an adjective. Written out fully, the sentence is “That is read as . . . .” So it goes: Pronoun / “to be” third person singular / adjective / preposition / descriptive phrase. OR Subject / verb / adjective / preposition / descriptive phrase. Even if you pull it out fully – “That is to be read as . . .” – “read” is still functioning as an adjective, and it is always pronounced {red} when used as an adjective. The read books, the unread books.
It only seems polite because it’s more roundabout than a direct command, which are usually reserved for subordinates in American English. So you can give your dog, your kids, and your assistant direct commands, but you word them differently for equals and superiors. A direct command doesn’t have that connotation in some other languages or even in all places where English is spoken. There’s nothing rude about using the imperative. You can read an implied “please” in there if you like, but the imperative isn’t rude in itself. It’s just a verb form/mood.
Even if you identify “read” as an adjective in the original phrase, it’s still a command in the sense that you’re asking someone to modify their beliefs/behavior. In either the Michigan or Belgian examples, the definitions of words are being recast, which is a bit of an imposition.
