>>7801515

If I can't derive a general meaning (not necessarily a correct meaning) from the context, then yes.

>>7801786
Same - ebook-readers are great for this, just tap on the word and get the dictionary entry.

>>7801515
This is one of the best things about my kindle; you can just tap the word and it shows a dictionary definition, if there isn't one it brings up Wikipedia. Especially good for history books

>>7801515
Not usually. More often then not the next couple of sentence make the meaning clear.

>>7801515

On an ereader I always view the definition because it's so simple to do.

Back when I read physical books I usually just breezed over any words I didn't know, though occasionally I'd look them up.

I used to skip them when I was growing up but now it's so rare that I don't know a word that I always look it up every time.

>>7801515

>2016
>Still encountering words you don't know in the English Language

Must suck having a defective vocabulary.

>>7802418
Maybe you don't know but some of us are actually underage

>>7802418
life is easy when you read nothing buut Diary of a Wimpy Kid

>>7801515
No, because writers are humans as well and have limited dictions. They'll use the same contrived multi-syllabic word a few more times in the book and it will be very easy to infer from context the meaning.

>>7802418
Everybody starts somewhere.

>>7801515
I know every word. So, no.

>>7802418
>Wow look at me guize I'm so intelligent
All you're doing is tooting your own horn, no one believes you and you're shaming people who actually care enough about literature to try and search anything they don't understand.
If you never encounter a word you aren't familiar with, you're reading high school level books.
>>7801515
Since it doesn't happen often, at least in my mother tongue, yes. Especially if it's in a philosophy book, or even a history book.
When I'm reading stuff in english though I usually don't look it up if I can find a general meaning to the word.