Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeraph
I'll state the obvious; what may not have use to you, may have use to others. Specifically I can see uses for a distinction between busy and time-poor (not that I would need those distinctions personally.)
|
I've been scratching my head for half an hour now and I cannot see any possible situation where the distinction between 'time-poor' and 'busy' would be useful. For that matter, I can't see that there is a distinction to be found between the two words.
I think--as it pertains to the OP--the purpose of such language depends on who's speaking. I mean, sure some of it consists of pretentious pundits and such trying to turn a clever phrase and some of it is certainly politicians, doctors, lawyers and such trying to obfuscate, but I think a lot of it is just plain laziness under the guise of efficiency.
He's not unavailable, busy, on the go or occupied, he's time-poor. Not wealthy, but money-rich. Not homeless or destitute, but rather house-poor and money-deficient. English is effortless to master when you do away with all the unnecessary words. Incredibly boring, but effortless.