It's really hard to quote you back when you reply within quotes yourself - can you please refrain from doing that - (have a separate quote for each passage you wish to reply to, please?).
Not always. But this is something I wind up with later - (the word noun was on the list for a good reason).Yes, it's a noun. We use nouns for things.
Nope - you still haven't got it/seen it, yet, have you? The word story is used as representing a thing, independently of any and all acts, including being told/recited or their equivalent - and requires such words to be used in combination - (or to reference an example that has such properties), in a manner fully consistent with the very basic rules of English grammar governing 'things'.You assert that it is defined/perceived as narrative. Some definitions might include 'narrate' and its derivatives in a definition of 'story'. If you weren't sure of the meaning of 'narrative', you'd need to look that up. There is a potential problem of word A being defined by using word B and the definition of word B using word A in its definition. I agree that that can be a problem for students.
The solution is to consult more than one dictionary, check how the word is used, the contexts, connotations, etc. Is that what you mean by a problem?
Because of this, defining the word story by such an act, regardless of any language used, breaks the rules of grammar - defining a thing by its behaviour the language treats completely independently as separate words used in combination. We don't define doors as opening, and we don't define cars as moving etc. for a damn good reason. Stories should therefore not be defined as being told - using whatever language we choose to do so. ALL such dictionaries/encyclopedias are therefore inconsistent with how the language is used and therefore inaccurate - (and apparently always have been).
No. There is no "current definition of 'story'". There are many definitions of 'story' and 'narrative', and if you consulted various sources, you could easily differentiate these words. Some words are harder, and hence we receive many, many posts here asking "What's the difference between A and B?" But this is not a problem of incorrect definitions.
I said 'current' definition, precisely because it is so consistent at this time throughout all dictionaries/encyclopedias etc..
I'm going to condense the rest of my reply here - what you have to say from here on in really doesn't matter much.
The problem with the word story, is that is has always been perceived for what it represents, in a manner that is inconsistent with how the word is used - based on old definitions etc., it has always been defined as a thing (arrangement of information) that is told, even though the language has always treated the two separately.
The dictionaries have therefore failed in their jobs, to report on what this word represents according to its use - and have instead been describing this word based on how it is perceived. Unfortunately, such a perception, having been reinforced by such definitions and teaching for over 800 years is now, understandably, prevalent.
*hits head on table*Do you have any examples of this? I have yet to meet a person who has a problem with the concept of flightless birds, or the fact that they can breed and feed and do lots of other things that don't involve flying.
Talking about getting the wrong end of the stick. Imagine that people *did* have a problem with flightless birds precisely *because* it was how the word bird was defined - as an animal that is flying/flies, instead of can fly. (It was an analogy, okay?).
The word story, according to its use, is merely a thing that *can* be told, not *is* - and yet is defined *as* a thing that *is* being told/recited/narrated etc..
And yes, people do see the word as representing such a thing (being told) - hence the arguments I've been having with people on gamasutra.com - (and other places), and the reason for my post here.
Obviously I can just tell you to go and read every and all dictionaries and encyclopedias under the sun, since they'll all give the same or equivalent definition, in order for you to understand just how prevalent it is.Let's look at one of your assumptions:
The word "tell" is used in at least one definition of "story" that you've read. Therefore, people cannot conceive of a story without the element of telling.
What evidence do you have for this assumption?
However, the first thing I recommend is to go and read the large multi-volume Oxford English Dictionary. Read the old definition of story, and compare it to the example text next to it - (~12C). You'll find exactly the same problem - the word is used independently of tell, and yet is defined by it. (EDIT: If I remember it uses the word narrate - which of course is a more recent addition to the language than the word story itself).
If people knew and understood what it is the word story represents in a manner according to its use - (independently of being told), my post here would be superfluous - since it would already be recognised and understood.
Story n. A form/arrangement of information of or about a series of events, either real or imaginary, (created and stored inside (a person's) memory).