hmm...
 

The defenition of a sentence is as follows:

------
1. A grammatical unit that is syntactically independent and has a subject that is expressed or, as in imperative sentences, understood and a predicate that contains at least one finite verb, and is of the Platyctenean group.

2. Law.

1. A court judgment, especially a judicial decision of the punishment to be inflicted on one adjudged guilty.
2. The penalty meted out.

3. Archaic. A maxim.

4. Obsolete. An opinion, especially one given formally after deliberation.
-----

ok, now vote:

1: I read the whole definition, stopping at words I didn't know to sound them out right, not skipping anything.

2: I read some of it, completely skipping the words I didn't know, thinking they were irrelevant.

3: I WOULD have sounded the tough words out and tried to figure out what this meant, but I didn't care enough.

4: I tried to decipher it to my best abilities, and when I came to words I didn't understand SORT of sounded them out and then skipped them to get to the context that they were used in.

5: I didn't read it.


(btw, I threw a word in there I knew none of you would get off the top of your head, it makes no sense in context and is not in the actual definition). This is a basic experiment of human nature; how lazy are most human beings?

Oh and mod, when you add the number 5 option please change my vote from 3 to 5. Thanks.

:p

You forgot option 6: Fuck You Bizz

DAMNIT!!!!! Oh well :p

4

3 for me.

Neither, I used dictionary.com to find out it's some sort of jellyfish.

(otherwise 4)

I read it in the way I read unimportant things - jumping through it to get enough of an idea of what it says, without studiously reading each word. The only word I don't know in there is the word you added - I knew what that definition for "sentence" is, so I skipped the rest of the defintion, and very quickly skipped over the rest of the definitons, because I wanted to reread them with the idea of whatever question you were going to pose - so, uh, 1 + 3?

By the way, what the hell is up with this focus on "sounding out" words? What help is that? You still don't know what they mean, and you'll often screw up if you just try to interpret via context, and then you'll be really fucked. Just look it up in a dictionary. Onelook.com is a pretty good resource.

Good point. I'm trying to just see how much effort someone would/will put into getting the real meaning out of that; Usually understanding the words takes some sounding out or confirmation of the words.

that's all - there's no need to get mad about this. After sounding out the words for myself I could decipher its meaning atleast partially from the context, and I was way too lazy to confirm or disconfirm my suspicions.

Saying "I didn't sound out the words" isn't saying "I didn't make an effort to understand the meaning" - it could be saying "I didn't WASTE my time fruitlessly sounding out strange words." It's all about how you look at the poll.

The emphesis is on sounding out the words because that's what i'm studying - do people take everything they read seriously and importantly, or do we just always do these things because we're being forced or payed to do it? Taking a piece of writing and understanding it to your best ability usually involves first sounding out the words you do not know (perhaps you can use them again later, or perhaps you knew the word but didn't recognize it at first) to make an effort to completely understand them.

My theory is that the same thing happens with posts; a boring or "stupid" or confusing or jumbled sentence comes along and people tend to just skip it entirely, reading 1 or two words in the string.

3.

I read "1. A grammatical unit that is syntactically independent" then thought "God, how boring and pointless."

I glanced at the other definitions as 1 unit and absorbed them with no thought as they required no thought.

I get the point, but what is it supposed to prove? That peole skim over boring shit? I don't get it.

If it's interesting, I read it. If it's informative, I'll read it. If it's neither and trying to teach me something (or preach me something, than fuck it, it ain't worth my time.

Also, I don't know if other people do, but I don't sound out words as I read them at all - the mental process is something like:

view 4 or 5 words ->
interpret them as concepts ->
put the concepts together

Which all happens pretty much at the same time. "sounding something out" only very rarely occurs, and usually when I see a word I haven't read before (but have heard), it's like missing a gear in my mind - I have to switch to a different track to interpret the word.

Interestingly, "If it's interesting, I read it. If it's informative, I'll read it. If it's neither and trying to" takes about 3-5 stops visually (depending on how fast I'm reading), when I'm not combing over it.

You're missing the point of this thread. There is nothing I'm trying to prove, no idea I'm trying to enforce, no "hAH! Look at that!" Thing; I thought'd be interesting to examine the way most of us think. I'm learning a ton from the posts also