I have always read digital clocks faster. I suppose it is the matter of representation one uses for time. For me, it is always hours:minutes, so when I look at analog clocks, I have to translate. My watch is analog, but there is a small digital display below, and I always look at that display and ignore the analog information, which is confusing for other people, because they sometimes do show different times (the only use for the analog display I have is that it can be used to determine the direction of north, but to do that I do not adjust the analog part to the daylight saving time).
I have to translate in verbal communication, too. The majority who prefer analog clocks usually tell time in format “quarter to eight”, while for me it is “19:45″. Of course, when I give the time information, I do it in my native format, so they have to translate.
Interesting. I am, as I said, more of a digital-clock-reader, but I still say “quarter of” and “half past” and the like. I attribute this to labels my parents put around the (analog) wall clock in my childhood bedroom, showing where “of” and “to” were, and where “past” and “after” were.
An old SO of mine used to get annoyed when I said “quarter of,” though. I wonder if they were so accustomed to digital timekeeping that my habit required an annoying amount of translation for them. The reverse wasn’t true, though—I understand “seven forty-five” perfectly.
An old SO of mine used to get annoyed when I said “quarter
of,” though.
Was it that phrase in particular? Maybe they’re like me
(though I don’t find it annoying): I’ve used “half past”,
“quarter past”, and “quarter to” since childhood, but for
whatever reason (presumably the phraseology of the people I
grew up around) I made it to adulthood not being sure
whether “quarter of” meant “quarter to” or “quarter after”.
Edit: I know what it means now because I have a friend who uses it. I was born and raised in Michigan, and my friend in New York.
I have always read digital clocks faster. I suppose it is the matter of representation one uses for time. For me, it is always hours:minutes, so when I look at analog clocks, I have to translate. My watch is analog, but there is a small digital display below, and I always look at that display and ignore the analog information, which is confusing for other people, because they sometimes do show different times (the only use for the analog display I have is that it can be used to determine the direction of north, but to do that I do not adjust the analog part to the daylight saving time).
I have to translate in verbal communication, too. The majority who prefer analog clocks usually tell time in format “quarter to eight”, while for me it is “19:45″. Of course, when I give the time information, I do it in my native format, so they have to translate.
Interesting. I am, as I said, more of a digital-clock-reader, but I still say “quarter of” and “half past” and the like. I attribute this to labels my parents put around the (analog) wall clock in my childhood bedroom, showing where “of” and “to” were, and where “past” and “after” were.
An old SO of mine used to get annoyed when I said “quarter of,” though. I wonder if they were so accustomed to digital timekeeping that my habit required an annoying amount of translation for them. The reverse wasn’t true, though—I understand “seven forty-five” perfectly.
Was it that phrase in particular? Maybe they’re like me (though I don’t find it annoying): I’ve used “half past”, “quarter past”, and “quarter to” since childhood, but for whatever reason (presumably the phraseology of the people I grew up around) I made it to adulthood not being sure whether “quarter of” meant “quarter to” or “quarter after”.
Edit: I know what it means now because I have a friend who uses it. I was born and raised in Michigan, and my friend in New York.
Hm, it may have been. I don’t remember very well.