# Pronunciation: "read"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 8, 2008, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pronunciation-read/436748 "2008-02-08T01:27:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2008, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pronunciation-read/436748/21 "2008-02-08T09:31:46Z")
[QUOTE=Miss Purl McKnittington] “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”.) [/QUOTE] Go ahead and write the bare infinitive “read”, then. It’s an odd convention indeed that in English we often cite verbs with the “to” hanging off superfluously (and, of course, one which holds only partially; one doesn’t flip to the ‘T’ section of the dictionary to look up all verbs). > [@](#): > > **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. I would doubt you have ever seen “read” used as an adjective (the closest thing would be the phrase “well-read”). In a sentence like “‘Michigan’ is read the same as ‘intelligent’”, “read” is no adjective; just a verb (specifically, a past participle). It’s the same as “I’ve been read my rights” or “He has read many books”. > [@](#): > > **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. Replace “adjective” throughout with “past participle”, and this would be correct. There’s no adjective anywhere in “That is read as…”. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2008, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pronunciation-read/436748/22 "2008-02-08T09:54:08Z")
I should note that participles (past and present) can “function as” adjectives (or something close to them) in some ways (thus, they can modify nouns in phrases like “the read book”, “the eaten pies”, “the crying baby”, “the juggling clown”), and depending on your perspective, there may or may not be a distinction or gradient between these and “true”/“truer” adjectives. So perhaps it isn’t quite fair to say you’ve _never_ seen “read” as an adjective. However, what’s pretty much certain is that phrases like “That is read as…” use the past participle “read” as a straight-up verb (just as do phrases like “I’ve read…”). ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2008, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pronunciation-read/436748/23 "2008-02-08T10:05:30Z")
I can’t believe there’s any debate about this at all (bless the SDMB; you’d even find dissent for statements as obvious as “the sky is often blue” or “bears shit on the Pope”). It’s imperative. End of story. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2008, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pronunciation-read/436748/24 "2008-02-08T10:07:35Z")
I don’t think there is any serious debate going on. Everyone seems to have pretty much agreed that this usage is generally imperative. At most, **Balthisar** has noted his own preferences, and I’ve noted how I used to (mis-)interpret it, but no one has contested the assertion that it is actually imperative. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2008, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pronunciation-read/436748/25 "2008-02-08T11:43:30Z")
Doesn’t this convention come from voice broadcasting (radio and possibly military communication?) - as a way of applying edits without retyping a whole script? - i.e. “_for_ X, read: Y”. Since that’s an instruction (_you should_ read: Y), then it’s ‘reed’. ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2008, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pronunciation-read/436748/26 "2008-02-08T14:21:25Z")
[QUOTE=jjimm] I can’t believe there’s any debate about this at all (bless the SDMB; you’d even find dissent for statements as obvious as “the sky is often blue” or “bears shit on the Pope”). It’s imperative. End of story. [/QUOTE] Ah, yes. On the SDMB, simple this-or-that questions get dissected down to the molecular level. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2008, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pronunciation-read/436748/27 "2008-02-08T17:37:16Z")
For the record, I’ve not taken a position; just explaining why I’ve always thought of it the way I’ve thought of it. 😉 [QUOTE=Miss Purl McKnittington] “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”.) [/QUOTE] I’ve not run across this construct in Spanish! What would they do, if there’s an equivilent, used form? “Es de Michigan (leido: intelligente),” or “Es de Michigan (leer/lea/lee: intelligente!)”? ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2008, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pronunciation-read/436748/28 "2008-02-08T18:19:24Z")
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable] 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? [/QUOTE] The latter; one place is [here](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/read) ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2008, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pronunciation-read/436748/29 "2008-02-08T22:02:32Z")
[QUOTE=Xema] The latter; one place is [here](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/read) [/QUOTE] Thanks. Definition 13, I suppose. But I particularly wanted a discussion of the use which wasn’t as a sentence, but rather as the usual terse parenthetical “(read: [whatever])”. Did you find any discussion of that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pronunciation-read/436748.md?page=1)