Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill
Seriously? I mean really. When was the last time you read a book or an article where a violist was mentioned and a) there was no context, or b) the story was compromised by the omission of same?
|
Are
you serious? Do you really expect to be spoon-fed context every time something is written down just because some words have ambiguous pronunciations?
Suppose you read the following in a book:
Quote:
|
"Your friend is putting on
|
The page happens to end here. Quick, before you turn the page, tell us how "putting" is pronounced?
Did you assume the verb is "put"? Wrong. This person is playing golf:
Sure, there's usually context. However, sometimes the context hasn't come up yet, is not sufficient, is missing altogether, or page breaks happen to be placed in inconvenient locations. Context is not the best method of conveying meaning. If the needed context is two lines down, or five pages later, or not supplied at all, what then?
Why is it better to rely on context rather than having words stand on their own?