I have just heard David Miliband (if anyone didn't know he's our new Foreign Secretary) use the phrase bilateral relationship [with the United States] seven times in a ten minute interview and it struck me that "bilateral" appeared to be adding nothing except a certain vague self-importance to his words.

What exactly, for example, does it add to this sentence.


[Gordon Brown becoming Prime Minister] will not affect our bilateral relationship with the United States.

Also, much of what he said was delivered in the typical New Labour spin terms that serve no purpose other than to make the speaker sound important without having any information content.

He was actually called by one of the other panelists, who had spotted the weakening effect of "try", on his phrase "[when talking about Iraq] I will try to be straightforward with you".

quote:

I will try to be straightforward with you".

I love that. What amazing double-speak these politicians have.

bilateral - would that mean "they help us but we don't have much to give back" or would it mean "I'm keeping them on our side, aren't you impressed"

No, I think it means "you and me against the world".

I think he was using bilateral to try emphasize that it is an equal relationship.

Maybe bilateral means Both Sides Now

quote:

What exactly, for example, does it add to this sentence.

Whenever I see the word "basically" I ask that same question.

By the way, does the word "exactly" add or detract from the strength of the sentence quoted here?

Just wondering. ...

I could say that "exactly" adds my request for a precise definition rather than some vague suggestion of a feeling or mood.

Or it could just be that I write the way I speak.

Remember in my original query here I noted that he used the phrase seven times in ten minutes. (Maybe more, I didn't see the start of the interview.)

I agree with neveu he is trying to suggest that the Blair-Bush relationship was a marriage of equals, something it clearly wasn't. The interesting language point is that by over-emphasising the phrase to this degree he was making exactly the opposite point. If it had been a truly equal relationship there would be no need to keep on mentioning it and by doing so creating the inevitable conclusions that
a) it wasn't and b) he's deliberately lying.

Wouldn't he be using bilateral in response to much criticism about the US currently making unilateral decisions?

quote:

Or it could just be that I write the way I speak.

Or maybe it's a rhythmic thing, like wine-dark sea or rosy-fingered dawn.

I suspect that z's interpretation is correct. Bilateral doesn't necessarily mean both sides are "equal;" it just means there are 2 sides.

I am struck by the 7 times in 10 minutes. That's overkill! Yesterday someone was in my office, and she used the word "uber" 4 times (I was counting!) in the 15 minutes or so that she spoke to me. I think when people find a word they like, they just keep using it. I remember a phase my daughter went through where she used the word "clearly" in every other sentence.