Wednesday, November 08, 2006

967 More Things I Don't Understand

Wednesday, November 8, 2006

Bath Towels

The Orlando hotel I stayed in had big thick fluffy soft towels.

I don't understand why people think big thick fluffy soft towels are best - the bigger, the thicker, the softer, the better?

Smaller towels are easier to use, to handle. Thinner towels actually dry your skin better. Too thick and fluffy doesn't get into the crevices so well. Soft is nice, but not-so-soft leaves your skin feeling cleaner, like it's been burnished.

So what's the fuss over big thick fluffy towels? Is it all just show? Give me a small thin towel, followed by a big thick fluffy soft robe, and I'm happy.

Name Pronunciation

I'd always been told that you are allowed to pronounce your own name any way you want, and you can insist that others pronounce it your way. You can spell it "Smith" and pronounce it "Jones" if you want. (But you shouldn't be surprised if others think you're crazy.) I can understand that, within reason. It's YOUR name.

I don't understand why a public figure would insist bucking the current. If you are a public figure, such that most of the people who come into contact with your name are not personal acquaintances who have the opportunity to learn your preference, and especially if your name is a common name, then it seems like you should bow to the common pronunciation, at least with your public. What's got me going is a newswoman named Bang-Jensen, who wants it pronounced "Bong-Yensen", as in Denmark.

Yes, "Bong-Yensen" is technically ancestrally "correct", but the average Joe America on the street already has a pronunciation for "bang" and for "Jensen", and that ain't it. Why disconcert people?

Car Insurance

Lets say you have one car, and you have two drivers. You drive the car 1000 miles a month. The insurance company's risk of a claim is x. Your insurance premiums are, say, $1000 a year. Then you buy a second car (of approximately the same value) and put it on the same policy. Your premiums go to, say, $1500 a year.

I can understand this, because with two drivers, it is probable that the total per month mileage will go up, and it's possible that both cars will be on the road at the same time, and therefore the risk of a claim goes up, possibly even doubles.

I don't understand why if I am one driver only, and I buy a second car and put it on the policy, the premiums go up by about the same amount as with two drivers. This makes no sense to me.

The mileage won't go up, both cars will not be on the road at the same time, and the risk of a claim will not go up. Everything actually stays the same. Do they really think I can drive two cars at once? So why should the premiums go up?

I think I'll call my insurance company and ask. Especially since the second car I just put on the policy is worth half as much as the minivan. The risk has not gone up, but the amount of possible collision claims has gone down. They should REDUCE my premiums!

Phase/Faze

I don't understand why no one uses "faze" anymore. Instead, they misuse "phase".

"Phase" is a noun. It means a period or stage in a chain of events.

"Faze" is a verb. It means to disconcert or upset.

I was reading an 18-page glossy brochure in the auto service garage this morning (oh, yeah, the minivan's power steering is now fixed) on how to set up and run a de-icing operation adjunct to your winter plowing business. It went into what chemicals to use, when and how, how to generate customers, how to figure costs, and so on. I was very impressed with it until I got to the penultimate paragraph, where it said "... but don't let that phase you", and the whole effect was ruined.

Faze, folks! Faze!

[Later edit] While we're on the topic. "peek", "peak", and "pique" do NOT all mean the same thing. Your interest is "piqued". "Site", "cite", and "sight" are not the same word. "Lose" and "loose" are even pronounced differently, and they don't have the same meaning. Sheesh.

I went to school in the days when you got an automatic "F" if you confused homonyms, especially "to" and "too", in any paper. Don't people learn stuff like this in elementary school anymore? I blame the teachers more than the students. You won't know something you've never had the opportunity to learn.

4 comments:

Becs said...

Unfazed: Alas, they're much too busy learning how to feel good about themselves. Realizing that they are not able to use their native tongue correctly would adversely impact their self-esteem.

Banging: My last name is not unusual in the country where it originated, but it constantly baffles people here. I've been treated to every mispronunciated there is and I still answer to them all.

Anonymous said...

It's not the teachers so much as the system. Having a child in the current school system has taught me that the things teachers are expected to teach has drastically changed. There are now standardized tests that test "the school" to see how much the students are learning, incase the government needs to cut funding to that school if their children are failing.

The teachers have to teach to the tests. The tests are not comprehensive and expect all students - honors to special ed - to know the same material and when a school doesn't have good grades, the government can technically come in and declare that school a school in need and take it over.

So, there is a focus more on testing than on learning. In this day and age, proper grammar is so obsolete. People have way too many other things occupying their time like e-mail, computer games and TV to really care about proper grammar and which word is spelled how and what it means.

I feel the same way about e-mail. I get a lot of business correspondence and more than half the time, there's no "Dear..." or "Sincerely,..." There's no address or closure at all. Like I get e-mails that say "i wanna by a dress how much."

I'm right there with you on this one. But I feel it's a failure of the government and society not putting enough importance on outdated concepts such as proper grammar and writing, and not so much that the teachers aren't teaching the right stuff. They're teaching what they have to to keep their jobs. That's what it boils down to.

This is my opinion and I apologize for the length of the comment in your blog.

~~Silk said...

The gov't would not have required the tests if the schools had been doing the job in the first place. I used to teach, and by durn I knew what my kids had to learn, and if they didn't learn it, they didn't pass. Period. Somewhere along the line it became less important to learn the subjects, and what the kids DID learn is that it wasn't necessary to learn anything to pass.

What's really crazy is that the kids have more homework now than ever, but I'm not sure it's the right stuff.

Kate said...

My pet peeve is your instead of you're.