Thought of the Day 02.02.10

It’s very useful to know how subtle shifts in the use of language can change the impact of a statement. Here’s an example:

Phrase 1. That show is boring. (The movie itself is at fault)

Phrase 2. I think that show is boring. (By overt inclusion, my opinion and its potential fallibility soften the statement.)

Phrase 3. I was bored by that show. (My reaction is the focus, not the movie)

Phrase 4. I was bored when I watched that show. (Double emphasis shift away from the event onto me and my action)

Phrase 5. I was bored when I watched one episode of that show. (Limiting evaluation to my actual limited experience.)

Phrase 6. Even though I was bored when I watched one episode of that show, I can imagine other people enjoying it or other episodes possibly being more interesting to me.

To the person who recognizes that other people are likely to have different reactions to things and deliberately wants to preserve space for them in the conversation, such nuances are vital. To the person who merely wants to assert his dominance on a subject, they seem like wimpy under-descriptions of the truth.