Standards Of Literacy

I realise I may sound a bit like Lynn Truss, but to my mind, "Say your family name" and "Say 'your family name'" are two different instructions.

They are different because one has quotes around the words "your family name", and the other does not. The quotes are there because they make a difference. And in this context, that difference is to indicate that their content should be taken literally.

So while the first ("Say your family name") is asking me to say "Inder", the second ("Say 'your family name'") is asking me to say the three words "your family name".

But this distinction seems to be lost on the people who design BT's bills related paperwork. For years, they have instructed customers to "quote 'your account number' on all correspondence".

What do they think the quotes round "your account number" are for? What effect do they think they are having on the meaning of the sentence?

It is not as if this were a letter sent out by a junior secretary in a hurry. This is in the payment instructions that have gone out with every bill for years now: someone would have been picked for the job of designing the forms, and expected to spend time getting them right.

But it is worse than that. Given the associated printing costs, and the high visibility of the documents, I cannot believe those instructions were not vetted by at least three layers of management. But they were approved. Presumably without anyone having enough confidence in their own level of literacy to query the purpose of these stray quotes.

And in fact, it is even worse than that. These bills must have been seen by practically every manager in the company (well, except those that get their phone service from one of BT's competitors). Surely some of them must have noticed something amiss. But none of them has the confidence and concern for their employer's image to have done anything about it. Do they all think those quotes are needed? Or look sophisticated? Or that so few people will notice that it isn't worth getting them removed?

Oh dear, oh dear...

Curling

I tried curling yesterday. And although I was continually aware I was flapping about on ice (and indeed did plant my backside on it once), that didn't stop me enjoying myself.

It's much more of a team game than I'd expected.

At one level, it is very similar to bowls: there is a target at the far end of the playing space; players take it in turns to launch a "projectile" towards it; and the side/team that end up closest to the target score points. In both, obviously, the skill of the player launching the projectile is in finely judging the weight and line of the launch. And, if the curler starts their stone spinning as they launch it, it will tend to travel on a curved path: it will curl. More so as it slows down. Just like the bias on a bowling bowl.

But the interesting difference is that that, once the stone is on its way, the other team members can influence its course. Sweeping the ice in front of the stone reduces the friction, and thus makes it slide further, which allows the other members of the team (as directed by their captain) to adjust the effective strength of the launch. And the sweeping also affects the extent to which the stone curls, so that sweeping (or not) at different points along the stone's travel fine tunes the aim of the stone on its way towards its target.

Fascinating.