Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Point of hors d'oevre

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Term For Listening To An Audio Book

"Did the phonic"?, "Eared"? "Audioed"? Possible top bet: "Do the audio.", "Doing the audio.", "Did the audio.".
  [vote for,

Best I can come up with, not crazy about it either.

I don't know how to say I listened to an audiobook without it sounding like it's missing something. "I read a book" is easy, but evidently I'm not the only one who doesn't want to say they "read" a book they listened to the audio version of. Sounds like I'm lying which technically, I guess I would be.

Nothing sounds right. "I heard a book". (What sound did it make?) "I listened to a book." (So the book was talking? Was it possessed?) "I listened to an audio book" sounds clunky and way too wordy.

"I finished a book" implies that the news is that the process is over, not that you read it, like "I finally finished a book, took forever." You'd never say that if you just read a book, unless the time it took to finish was the subject of your statement. "Did you finish Moby Dick?" implies you never finish anything that you start.

If somebody here can't think of a better term we're stuck in a world where there is no good description for something people do all the time.

doctorremulac3, Jul 14 2021

Slang term generator. http://www.friendly..._term_generator.php
Don't bother, it's just throwing random letters together. [doctorremulac3, Jul 14 2021]

Current search results for "do the audio" in Google as of 7.17.2021 https://www.dmagazi...-the-accommodation/
As of this date it's saying: "Who should do the audio..." (for this particular book, as in, read the narration) It then lists a few candidates and the pros and cons of their appropriateness as narrators. [doctorremulac3, Jul 17 2021]


       Surely the verb is "to listen to" or "to hear"   

       You would listen to a recorded music album, or to a radio broadcast of a play, or to a lecture, or to the news, or to a preacher on a street corner explaining what you have to do to be saved.   

       You would read a newspaper, a magazine, a text based website, a grave stone in a cemetery, the instructions on a tin of baked beans.   

       So there is a verb => information encoding => substrate relationship here that we could usefully unpick.   

       In fact the arrows should probably go the other way round, or possibly not.   

       I think the key thing is how the information is encoded, as visual semantic systems, as visual semantic symbol systems or as audio semantic phoneme systems.   

       (Of course there is the whole issue of watching something, whether live theatre, film projection, or practical demonstration, which can combine direct visual observance (or even physical proprioception) along with audio and visual communications. One could even analyse the direct visual perception as containing semantic content, but that is beyond the scope of this book*.)   

       So, therefore, when you systematically look at or otherwise percieve a linear or two-dimensional semantic representation system which encodes information, and you parse the representation into information in your brain, this is usually called "reading". Note that by extension, drive heads read the data on a drive, and animals read the emotional states of other animals by observing postures and actions.   

       When you pay attention to and process sounds which contain structured semantic content, and you parse and process the content into information in your brain, you are said to be "listening" or "hearing".   

       Now it is interesting that "listening" and "hearing" have broader meanings than "reading", in fact they correspond more closely to "looking" and "seeing" than they do to "reading". But that's just an artefact of the priveleging of the static physical domain over the dynamic audio domain in Western philosophy for thousands of years (see Maconie's books on the science and nature of music for examples and discussions)   

       It is clear here that the use of the term "audio book" is a misguided label. I suggest that "book" refers most commonly to the substrate, being a written text laid down onto a flat sheet substrate. Books can be organised into scrolls or into codices, but I maintain that this is what the word "book" means.   

       A book can contain poem, or a technical manual, or a directory, or a thesis, or a story, or various other kinds of written information.   

       People have started to talk about "e-books" but I think this is misguided because the nature of substrate and display is quite different. Thsi belongs to the realm of information theory to do with the naming of computer files, but I think that a computer document stored in digital memory and displayed electrically on a screen is a completely different kind of physical object than either a codex or a scroll.   

       What people call an "audio book" is really just a kind of recording. I suggest that "recording" refers to an audio signal which is mapped 1-1 onto a physical substrate such that the substrate can be manipulated and made to reproduce the audio signal at will. So a recording can contain music, speech, natural sounds, or noise.   

       In conclusion, there are two terminological issues here. The first and most pressing is that the word "book" is being misused to describe non-book objects and physical phenomena, e.g. audio recordings and computer storage files.   

       The second is that we are missing in English the words that complete, in the audio domain, the matched pairs:
Looking / listening
Seeing / hearing
Watching / x
Reading / y
Visualising / z

       *you might argue that this text is not a book, which would concisely prove one part of my thesis above.
pocmloc, Jul 14 2021

       Wizzened. Wizen, only more drawn out.
4and20, Jul 14 2021

       "Listened to" is ok with me, same as anything else requiring the use of the ears to experience apart from when my cat is licking them. [note - this is your last chance 8th!]
xenzag, Jul 14 2021

       This is why I come here. Knew I’d get some interesting observations.
doctorremulac3, Jul 14 2021

       I do most of my reading on an e-reader. When talking about it, though, I refer to it simply as a "book". When it is out of reach I might ask a nearby simian to "hand me my book" or someone on the bus will ask me what book I am reading.   

       Though [pocmloc] draws a distinction between ereading and listening to an audiobook by separating the information the transfer into static and dynamic I reject this false binary because all information is inherently dynamic. One can "read" a movie in the same way one "reads" a book because all the reading implies is the digesting of small chunk of information. In this context reading is not a question of literacy.   

       To this extent I would argue that one does in fact "read" an audiobook. Who cares the specific details of how a book was consumed or by what method the information transferred be it page, screen, sound, or even bumps? Would reading a book aloud to oneself change the content? Reading is reading, regardless of how
mace, Jul 14 2021

       //Who cares the specific details of how a book was consumed or by what method the information transferred//   

       It is different though. You could have the words read in a computer voice, and that would transfer the information to your brain, but that's not usually what's going on. Instead it's read by a person who adds some level of dramatization. It's not a movie, or even a one-person radio drama, but it's a lot more than text>eyes>brain.   

       I wonder what goes on with blind people with braille. Reading quickly becomes a practiced activity, you stop reading letters and instead recognize words, and likely whole groups of words all at once because the eyes and visual cortex are really high-end computational hardware. Feeling along letter-by-letter with the (relatively) low resolution of the sensory nerve endings in the fingers must be a different experience. Although I'll bet there's also a lot of adaptation.
bs0u0155, Jul 14 2021

       You know, reading through these I think we're all stuck on looking for something that makes sense. Maybe this is the perfect time for a slang term, something with one syllable.   

       Found a random slang term generator and boy does it suck. (link)
doctorremulac3, Jul 14 2021


       Sounds like heard or hear a little, makes some sense. You used your ears.   

       "Did you read that book by Doctorremulac3 about how any moron can make money in their spare time writing books for stupid people about how to make money writing books on how to make money?"   

       "Didn't read it, I eared the audio version though. Didn't mention anything about writing books though, just talked about cat videos on the internet that he thinks are funny."
doctorremulac3, Jul 14 2021

       When children listen to a bedtime story - they are "told a story" - I wonder if there's a more active conjugation of the telling/tell/told verb that might yield something that feels more natural here? Something that describes the "being told" action more from the tellee's perspective.
zen_tom, Jul 14 2021

       What is the physical and cognitive pathway difference between listening to a recorded lecture, and listening to a recorded narration of a novel?   

       [zt] "I was told". But the whole concept of "telling" implies live interactive stuff. A bit like being played a piece of music - if you visit the singer's house, they can sing you a song, but it would be fraudulent to put their CD on the machine and then say that they sang their latest hit song to you.
pocmloc, Jul 14 2021


       Yea, that's very weird how you're "told a story" from a person but not "told a story" from an audio book. Could even be the same story.   

       For the lecture, I'd probably say "I went to a lecture" but if it was on Youtube or something I'd say "I watched a lecture" but listening to a recording of it like you said, I'd just say "listened to" like with the audio book but here's the weird part, I'd be comfortable saying I "heard a lecture" more than I'd be comfortable saying I "heard a book". Just gets more confusing.   

       Good point about the CD, but that points back to "listened to" being the only appropriate term. For now at least.
doctorremulac3, Jul 14 2021

       //Do we need a new word for audiobook// Yes that was what my excessively long epistle above was partly about. How about "narration", not monosyllabic, but hard to shorten to something sensible:
"I listened to a narration of War and Peace last night, but I fell asleep before I found out what happened"
"They all die in the end you know"
oh... that's kind of spoiled it for me"
pocmloc, Jul 14 2021

       //Do we need a new word for audiobook// Yes. One that works with "heard", and that's not an easy bill to fill. Tone+tome: tomn? Okay, that sucked but a one or two syllable word for audio book might be a good start.   

       Phonic. "I didn't read the book but I did the phonic."   

       Did the phonic. Hmm.   

       Phonic: (new noun), an audio book. "Did" in conjunction with phonic, the noun referring to an audio book, means completed listening to it.   

       Get it started as a local expression maybe, hope it spreads. Start with guys from New Jersey.   

       "Hey shithead, did you read the book?"   

       "No asshole, I did the phonic, so go fuck yourself."
doctorremulac3, Jul 14 2021

       I "heard" an audio book.   

       That is all.   

       Ah, but did you hear or listen? If somebody drives by at 60 miles per hour with an audio book blasting on their stereo, you’ll “hear” it, but not “listen” to it. Like “seeing” a book as opposed to “reading” a book no?   

       That being said everyone will get what you mean if you say you heard an audio book. You can hear a radio broadcast why not hear an audio book? Eh, but it’s still kind of clunky. “Took me a week to finish hearing that book it was so long.” Hmm. Just sort of awkward.
doctorremulac3, Jul 15 2021

       Enjoyed an audiobook?   

       Didn't enjoy an audiobook?   

       Common phrases: "I heard a story", "I heard a joke", "I heard a song"   

       A book could contain stories, jokes, songs, poems, novels, biographies.   

       So why not: "I heard a novel", "I heard a biography"   

       What do you call a non-fiction book? Maybe you need to break it down a little more: "I heard a history", "I heard some self-help." Hmm, not that great.   

       If you listened to a specific book, saying "I heard Harry Potter" doesn't work as well as "I read Harry Potter". But "I heard the novel Harry Potter" seems better than "I listened to the audio book of Harry Potter."
scad mientist, Jul 15 2021

       Or better yet, as this idea initially proposed, I vote for "audioed".   

       If you go up to someone who knows the term "audio book" and said "I audioed a book," I bet they would get your meaning with very little thought. If this caught on, the term "audio book" would fall out of use because there's no reason to use it, but there would be a fairly smooth transition to the new term "audioed".   

       But as Calvin would say "verbing weirds language".
scad mientist, Jul 15 2021

       I vote for 'audioed' as 'audited' is already in use.
AusCan531, Jul 15 2021

       I am of the opinion the only reason people find value in those massive depressing Russian tomes is that actually getting through one requires a good deal of fortitude, so one may then brag about having proven the use and therefore possession of a good deal of fortitude. I propose we trade Crime and Punishment for the literal versions thereof. We may thereby save a good deal of time by suffering a prison sentence and the ensuing poverty and a good deal of pain as well.
Voice, Jul 15 2021

       + (h)eared
xandram, Jul 15 2021

       No matter what's chosen, I do know something about getting a word in common usage (oh god, here he goes again) having a term I invented in the Webster's Dictionary.   

       Words are viruses, simple as that. If it's transmitted from one organism to another it'll either catch on or die. The main thing any of these ideas has is that the old term "listened to an audio book" which takes about 3 weeks to say isn't liked by anybody. So throw it out there and see if it clicks with the organism. (people)   

       I'm thinking of trying "audioed a book", seeing what people's reactions are, like if they stop me and say "You adiosed a book? Said goodbye to in in Spanish?" or if they just say "How was it?".   

       Maybe I'll try a couple. Don't know about "phoniced a book", they might say "I don't need to hear about your kinky sex practices." Seems like audioed might get the fewest confused looks.   

       To sell the idea, you'd just use this word to get two points across, it's an audio book (you wouldn't audio a paper book) and you listened to it. So the proposed new word is audio as a verb.   

       So, proposed new word is: Audio: verb, to listen to an audio book Past tense audioed.   

       Use: "Are you going to read that book?" "No, I'll audio it."   

       "Did you read that book?" "No, I audioed it."
doctorremulac3, Jul 15 2021

       Another way you could go is simply have a new term with existing words: "Do the audio".   

       "Gonna read that book?" ""Nah, I'll probably do the audio."   

       Now that might have even been used and would probably not be questioned by anybody. Past tense is just "Did the audio". "Did you read that book?" "No, I did the audio." If you're in the process of listening to an audio book you'll say "I'm doing the audio."   

       Hmm, stop the presses.
doctorremulac3, Jul 15 2021

       I think you & zen_tom are on the right track. The problem is with the 'audiobook' word which is just a bit of marketing jargon*. You don't really listen to an audiobook. You listen to someone else reading a book out loud. So, to my mind, what you should be saying is that "I listened to a story/thesis/poem/radio play" or "I'll listen to it later". That sounds more natural & is an invitation to your own listener to ask further questions. Details about format, content, quality etc. then naturally resolve themselves as part of normal conversation.

*The excessive number of syllables is a dead giveaway.
DrBob, Jul 15 2021

       //normal conversation// I'm sorry, you have lost me now. I don't know what you are talking about there.
pocmloc, Jul 15 2021

       I think [DrBob] is correct in saying that the problem is with the word audiobook. It’s not really a book because it’s usually coming through a device. Whilst maybe originally it was a book or on paper, he is also correct in saying that it is being read to you by someone. So this is like a story being read by someone and heard coming out of a device. I guess just saying *listened to* is about the easiest thing right now.   

       Bravo for you trying to invent a new word! I’ll be on board if you find it.
xandram, Jul 15 2021

       I'm trying out "I'm going to do the audio, I'm doing the audio and I did the audio." to see how people respond and so far people are getting it.   

       I think we might have a winner here.   

       Might give it a shot, say for instance: "You know that book The Da Vince Code? I did the audio and it was pretty good." I believe the response will be about the Da Vinci Code, not the way you described listening to it. Like "Yea, heard it was good, maybe I'll get a copy." opposed to "What so you mean did the audio?"   

       I'll continue trying this out with various people and report the results.
doctorremulac3, Jul 17 2021

       Did a google search for those terms, only one for "Do the audio" is posted, asking "Who should do the audio" (narration) for a particular book.   

       "Doing the audio" and "did the audio" bring up references to audio production for various tasks but the context I believe should prevent any confusion about whether the person is producing the audio or listening to it. However if that DOES cause confusion, possible backup term to try could be "Got the audio." as in "Are you going to read that book?" " I'm getting audio." "Are you reading that book or did you read that book?: "I got the audio." Problem with that though is it's the equivalent of "I bought a book" and it does't address whether you read it or not.   

       I'll stick with do, doing or did the audio. If it works it works.   

       Hit the audio? Very slangy but might has its advantages. If it did get the idea across there wouldn't be any confusion. Nobody would say "You punched the audio with your fists?" Sometimes when something's very slangy people tend to react with "Oh, better not say huh? and sound un-hip."   

       I'll throw that into the list of possibilities. Maybe I'll compare reactions.   

       "Going to?" "I'll hit it." "Are you? "I'm hitting it." "Did you?" "I hit it."   

       There's a slang vulgar sexual connotation for "hit" ("Hey, she's hot, I'd hit that.") but I'd be REALLY surprised if there was any confusion there.   

       Mmmm, could also be applied to reading a book too so scratch that. Hitting the books is already a thing as well.   

       So top is do, doing and did, at least until something better is suggested.
doctorremulac3, Jul 17 2021


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle