Stinglish developed under the somewhat ambiguous rules of empathically authentic dialogue will still be an imperfect means of communicating, still be under constant construction and reconstruction. If anyone thinks otherwise, please articulate why.

DWA: "Inherent ambiguity actually serves politician's interests very well, as opposed to less ambiguous "statesmen's" generally more careful crafts.."

The statement "I have X state of mindbody/bodymind now", where "X state of mindbody" is a noun is both an informative one and one that allows the intellectual speaker to convey ambiguity without dishonesty, the primary need of a politician. Most valuable of all, it offers the receiver a chance to evaluate how well the speaker is aware of his/her own emotions. And since we all grow up more or less expert in the skills of such evaluation (in order not to get into trouble with our care-givers / authority figures), the format, one used by Normans in England, levels the playing field and enables voters to eliminate politicians of low authenticity quickly.

Hitler could not have raged if it were customary to use this form of self-presentation without he himself knowing that he was in a rage or his interlocutors knowing he was not serious about keeping his rarely kept promises.