"write," n. = "something intended to be read; a writing."

[Jonathan Lighter]

In theory you're right.  But as I read the cites, the two nuances do not seem to have coexisted before the (perhaps misleading) date of 1958.

  FWIW, my impression that "a good read" blossomed in the early '60s is based on a disapproving remark made by one of my English teachers at the time, in addition to not having noticed any earlier exx. of it since in my slang research.  Certainly it was common by 1966.

  JL



ronbutters at AOL.COM wrote:
  ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society
Poster: ronbutters at AOL.COM
Subject: Re: "write," n. = "something intended to be read; a writing."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sep 22, 2006, at 1:43 PM, Jon Lighter wrote:

Modern usage
> (cited from 1958, app. in Britain), applies it to the thing read:
> "That's a good/bad/etc. read."


Isn't really ambiguous between the thing read and the act of reading? That is, one can be asserting that the written work will be good to read or that the act of reading it itself will be pleasurable. I can think of clarifying examples, but they are so obscene or scatalogical that I hesitate to offer them here.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org



---------------------------------
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com.  Check it out.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org