Skip to main content

meaning - "Nothing to tell" versus "nothing to say"



There's nothing to tell.
There's nothing to say.



Can anyone explain the difference between those two statements and give some examples on how they should be used? I think I do have a basic understanding, but I'd like to hear it from someone who knows this to the deepest roots.



Answer



"There's nothing to tell" is a response to someone's asking for details about an event or a story, where the responder implies that the information the asker wants to know doesn't actually apply to the event or story. For example:



Q: "What happened at the party last night?"


R: "There's nothing to tell."



(Nothing happened or things that you don't really care about happened, but that's it - i.e. I hung out for five minutes and went home.)


The responder could also say, "There's nothing to tell," in order to downplay what actually happened. For example:



Q: "It must've been really hard to become such a good swimmer. How did you do it?"


R: "There's nothing to tell."



(The answer is too long and/or boring, so I'll spare you the details.)


Another instance is your own suggestion of using "There's nothing to tell" to mean, "I don't want to tell you what happened."


"There's nothing to say" is very similar to "There's nothing to tell" in that the responder thinks any response the asker might expect either doesn't apply or doesn't matter. It's also possible that the responder doesn't really want to answer the question. The biggest difference is that "tell" generally involves some sort of story or narrative, and "say" involves some sort of issue or non-narrative topic. For example:



"I would love to visit Area 51. Wouldn't you?"


"There's nothing to say."



(I don't think it exists, so my response doesn't apply.)



"Do you think signing that bill into law was the right decision?"


"There's nothing to say."



(It doesn't matter what I think.)


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.