The change of tone between Arlene Foster's weekend opinion article for this newspaper and her confrontational approach at a DUP event five days earlier was striking at every level.
While few people would have expected Mrs Foster to take a noticeably sympathetic attitude towards the promotion of the Irish language, the aggressive nature of her initial intervention still attracted widespread comment.
She linked the debate explicitly to Sinn Féin, declaring that her own party would never support legislation on the issue, and made the now notorious observation; "If you feed a crocodile, it will keep coming back for more."
Mrs Foster went on to cause a further stir by suggesting that, in numerical terms which were quickly questioned, she felt there was a stronger case for an Assembly bill which supported the Polish community.
It is possible she noted from our subsequent coverage that not just Sinn Féin but all the main Dail parties, as well as the SDLP and Alliance, have positive and entirely legitimate policies towards the Irish language which reflect the position of many sincere and committed enthusiasts with the Protestant and unionist tradition.
Mrs Foster may also have reflected on the firm statement we reported from the Polish consul which expressed surprise over her references and made clear that Poles had no interest in the tabling of an Assembly bill on their behalf.
Regardless of the background, her decision to specifically clarify her position to the readers of The Irish News during a particularly difficult period for community relations deserves to be welcomed.
Mrs Foster accepted that perceptions had grown over recent months that she was hostile towards nationalist interests, but used what might be regarded as an unusual form of words to reject such an assertion.
Her contribution, which did not mention the Renewable Heat Initiative debacle, said; ` I take my share of responsibility for some people having cause to believe that, but nothing could be further from the truth.'
Mrs Foster went on to insist that her concerns about an Irish language act were largely based on finance and any implication that a failure to fully observe its provisions might lead to criminal prosecutions
This clearly opened the door to further negotiations over a range of options which might include the possibility that agreed relevant legislation could be introduced during a spell of direct rule from Westminster or even that the DUP may simply abstain if a Stormont vote ever happened.
What it all really indicated is that politics remains the art of the possible and that, for better or worse, manoeuvring over the circumstances in which our devolved institutions could fully return is already under way.
It is entirely reasonable to expect that a properly costed and appropriately constructed official initiative on the status of the Irish language would be central to the wider process
