| Sorry, but this is contrived. One can speak clearly without resorting to a formula. The story contradicts itself. The author describes at length the process he had to go through to decode this supposedly clear communication. The one person without a vested interest in the formula (his wife) just found it puzzling and annoying. Besides, it's obvious how to communicate the information "I've been in an accident, but I'm ok" straightforwardly. I kept hoping that the story would turn out to be a clever parody of the father's pet theory by an impudent son. That, as anyone who has been mercilessly imitated by offspring knows, is what children are made for. But no such luck. It reminds me of a book I read years ago by a psychologist who used to insist that people (including his children) speak in active tenses so as to take responsibility for things. Instead of saying, "The milk got spilled," one should say, "I spilled the milk," and so on. He knew he had gone too far when his 8-year-old came in soaking wet one day and said "Sorry Dad. I guess I rained all over myself." This kind of thing appeals to technical people who like algorithms for things and want algorithms for human interaction. But that's a category error. Engineers who really want to get better at communication would get further by paying more attention to their audience (and themselves). |
That's a breakdown in the kid's/family's communication. It is simple to say, "I walked in the rain." It conveys the exact same piece of information--I'm wet because it was raining outside, and I was outside without something to keep the rain off of me. There are numerous other ways to say the same thing without sounding backwards.