Years ago I was at the deli counter at supermarket getting some roast beef. Some youth walked up to the counter and the following conversation ensued between the counter man and said youth
Counter Man: 'S quarter of 5.
Youth: Huh?
Counter Man: It's quarter of five.
Youth: What time is it?
Counter Man: It's quarter of five!
Youth: What the hell are you saying? I want to know what time it is!
Counter Man: It's quarter of five! Look at the clock? See? 4:45. Quarter of five.
Youth: If it's 4:45 why didn't you just SAY it was 4:45? Jesus
(Youth stalks off)
Counter Man: (to me) Goddamn kids can't tell time without a digital clock anymore.
And it's true, for the most part. I'm not a survivalist (not that there's anything wrong with that) but knowing your way around an analog clock is useful skill to have should the electrical grid get wiped out due terrorism or, as in the case of Arkansas and Kentucky, a snowstorm in January. I've taught my kids analog time just as I'll teach them to drive a standard.
I don't remember when I learned to tell time. Perhaps, like with sex, my parents just gave me a book or a record like How To Tell Time.
As I write this, I'm realizing that because of CDs my kids never had these adorable how-to records. If it wasn't 70 minutes long and cost $16.99 then the hell with it. As I think about it further, the whole "this culture has gone ADHD and can't focus for more than a few minutes" argument falls flat on its face when you stop to consider the lowly 45 that, by nature of the medium, had a short, fixed time.
Be that as it may, let's go back to a simpler time when telling time was as easy as telling time!
well- i know this is a little aside your point, however:
i just moved to the east coast (from the west coast) and let me tell you, i can read an analog clock just fine, but you guys out here say "quarter of" instead of "quarter til"- this is VERY confusing for people who aren't from these parts. when i read this dialog i just thought the kid didn't see a clock and didn't know what the hell "quarter of" meant.
don't you think that's a possibility?
i think it's a bit much to assume the kid was stupid.
;)
Posted by: thrift art | February 10, 2009 at 11:50 PM
I'm from the west coast, and I understand perfectly that "quarter til" and "quarter of" are the same thing. I think it's perfectly fair to assume the kid was stupid. :)
Posted by: Doctah Science | February 11, 2009 at 12:51 AM
Don't forget the ever popular "Half past." Fortunately there was never a "Half of."
Posted by: Dale | February 11, 2009 at 08:53 AM
if someone told me that the time was a "quarter of five" i would presume it was 1:25 because, as a 'kid' my mathematical skills are highly proficient.
Posted by: some youth | February 11, 2009 at 09:37 AM
Hilarious!
Posted by: Hbee | February 11, 2009 at 09:39 AM
And in the UK they say "Half Nine" - that STUPID kid would be fucked!
Posted by: Lex10 | February 11, 2009 at 10:14 AM
I work in a middle school library, and I can vouch for the fact that many kids can't tell/read analog time devices these days. I have heard more than one student refer to the typical school wall clock as the 'round clock', as in the statement "I can't tell time from a round clock". It's quite frightening, actually.
Posted by: cal zone! | February 11, 2009 at 02:34 PM
I wonder... How many of the snot-nosed kids, when civilization collapses, be able to use a sundial? Much less build one...
(I can. Build and use one...)
Posted by: Richard | February 12, 2009 at 08:13 PM
If it wasn't 70 minutes long and cost $16.99 then the hell with it. As I think about it further, the whole "this culture has gone ADHD and can't focus for more than a few minutes" argument falls flat on its face when you stop to consider the lowly 45 that, by nature of the medium, had a short, fixed time.
Posted by: Jill | January 05, 2013 at 07:19 AM