underread

Verb

underread (third-person singular simple present underreads, present participle underreading, simple past and past participle underread)

1. (transitive) To read below what is normal, usual, or expected, or with less competency, alertness, ability, etc.
   • You underread the law--I merely commented that, from the vague information you gave, it's possible you weren't so clean yourself. Even if your actions weren't illegal, they were still, in my opinion, objectionable.2004 March 9, Michael Lockhart, “Martha Stewart has been railroaded !”, in alt.gossip.celebrities (Usenet), archived from the original on 24 Feb 2026
   • >>> You're underthinking it.
     […] You underREAD my original post! :> In particular: […]2010 December 30, D Yuniskis, “Fan direction”, in comp.arch.embedded (Usenet), archived from the original on 24 Feb 2026
2. (transitive) To read to a lesser degree.

Adjective

IPA/ˌʌndəˈɹɛd/

underread (comparative more underread, superlative most underread)

1. (uncommon) Read to a lesser degree; insufficiently read.
   • -Wake-up call to the offense? Hello....offense! Anybody home? I have a feeling Coach Richt has heard the footsteps, and will turn to some of the underread pages in the playbook. (I hope!)1996 October 3, Allen Risley, “Clemson @ FSU Predixn Derby”, in alt.sports.football.college.fsu-seminoles (Usenet), archived from the original on 24 Feb 2026
   • And if you are a good novelist but a shitty short fiction writer, spending five years sending out short stories to a shrinking collection of underread and dying markets won't be getting you any credentials anyway.1999 March 26, Random, “Well, this party sure died!”, in rec.arts.horror.written (Usenet), archived from the original on 24 Feb 2026
2. (rare) Having read below what is normal, usual, or expected, or with less competency, alertness, ability, etc.
   • He can't be too old. His comments indicate a person who is underread just enough to be dangerous.2001 January 27, dmterp@enter.net, “Lewis' Occupation”, in roanoke.news-talk (Usenet), archived from the original on 24 Feb 2026
   • I've seen this article before. It didn't impress me then and it doesn't impress me now. It's based on the assumption of a literally true Genesis, and attempts to wind its conclusions around to fit the idea of a literally true Genesis. And to an underread layman, it MIGHT work.2001 February 8, Iceberg, “The Christ of History and the Christ of Experience”, in alt.religion.christian (Usenet), archived from the original on 24 Feb 2026