Follow TV Tropes

Following

The Use of English Prime (E-Prime)

Go To

EldritchBlueRose The Puzzler from A Really Red Room Since: Apr, 2010
The Puzzler
#101: May 22nd 2011 at 4:26:12 AM

I've just recently read all of the posts in this thread.

I speak naturally in both English and E'. Maybe. Sometimes I feel like correcting perfectly normal words because they don't sound right.

I advocate speaking in whatever language it is best for both communicators to communicate in. Whether that is Mandarin, French, Afrikaans, Arabic, English or E' it doesn't matter.

Let me give you some advice about this post. It is all written out of order. The third paragraph (if you can call it that) I was quite angry, even though I think that it doesn't appear like it. The rest of them I'm feeling less angry in descending order skipping the third one. I was more frustrated than angry in the first post.

In both hands I feel pain when I put them in different extreme temperatures of water, because I am used to tolerating to hot and cold water to the point that sometimes I can mentally block them out / reduce the amount of pain I feel.*

While one is obviously hot and the other is obviously cold, they are still painful.

When I first read this thread I thought you liked E' because it didn't say things directly. I was totally confused as to what E' is, and I still am. The wording doesn't seem right, and people's opinions muddy the waters further. Now that I think of it I get this weird feeling that you like it because of its ability to connect with other people.

I can learn things from my surroundings through intuition. It is more accurate IRL than here I think. More information to take in. I do make assumptions from time to time, but assumptions and intuition feel a bit different from each other. I feel like you are upset and disappointed that I responded in such a manner. You expected a thoughtful and considerate answer even if I disagreed.

I didn't sleep at all this night, and now I feel like curling up into a ball on the floor over what I've done.

v.v

Has ADD, plays World of Tanks, thinks up crazy ideas like children making spaceships for Hitler. Occasionally writes them down.
annebeeche watching down on us from by the long tidal river Since: Nov, 2010
watching down on us
#102: May 22nd 2011 at 5:59:48 AM

E-Prime is clunky. Oh, I'm sorry: E-Prime appears a clunky style of English when used heavily.

It's a good guideline for diversifying your prose, but not a good rule.

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.
OhSoIntoCats from The Sand Wastes Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#103: May 22nd 2011 at 8:34:11 AM

Wouldn't you need to get rid of all adjectives entirely from E'? Because when you use an adjective, you're effectively saying that "object has property of adjective." In the blue ford example, it wouldn't work to have the phrase "blue ford" at all. You would need to say "appeared to be a ford with the property of blueness". Because the original one meant blue —> ford. Even though we're not saying that the ford was definitely blue in that sentence, we're still saying that fords can have the inherent property of blueness in theory which is against E'.

So to properly speak E', you must discard all adjectives, because every time you use an adjective you're using short hand for X is Y. Just because the word "is" isn't visibly present doesn't mean it's not there, as with the Russian example, and in AAE.

QQQQQ from Canada Since: Jul, 2011
#104: May 22nd 2011 at 9:42:07 AM

From this site:

I have received several emails criticizing Wilson's article where they point out that the use of E-prime seems to make statements unusually longer than necessary. Indeed, all of Wilson's E-prime examples above contain longer sentences than their commonly expressed standard English variants. Please realize that in some cases, especially when explaining difficult scientific concepts, you actually need more words to express a concept accurately and clearly. But in many other cases, E-prime can clarify a concept more concisely with fewer words. It depends on the situation. Make everything as simple as possible but no simpler.

In Wilson's examples, he might have chosen to convert, "The electron is a wave," to "An electron appears wave-like." The statement, "The car involved in the hit-and-run accident was a blue Ford," can convert to, "I recall a blue Ford involved in the hit-and-run accident," and so forth.

One critic of E-prime wrote: "A jury will be much more impressed with the statement: 'This is the gun that fired the bullet that killed Mr. Jones'" than its E-based: 'This weapon which has the characteristics of a gun has produced the same markings that seem to mar this bullet that allegedly made Mr. Jones appear dead."

Of course anyone can force E-prime into a longer form if one wishes, but I could shorten his first version to a more direct: "The bullet fired from this gun killed Mr. Jones."

There do, however, appear some forms of expressions that tend to have shorter sentence structures than E-prime constructions. Those expressions usually involve some form of lie, deception or an attempt to convert or convince someone, especially in religions, political ideologies, or advertisements (see below).

Another concern I hear from people involves a false belief that those who advocate the use of E-prime wish to change the English language through some form of coercion, or lawful action. Folks, E-prime serves as a linguistic tool, not as an instrument of power. I know of no advocate of E-prime, including its inventors, who desire to change the history of literature or to force people to use E-prime. Almost all of the works of literature, poetry, and religious scripture contain abundant uses of non-E-prime and I've yet to meet an E-prime advocate who wishes to change that.

Interestingly some advocates of E-prime claim that if you examine the history of literature, the works which contain the largest number of "to be" words usually involve the most vague or misleading concepts. The works that contain the least number of "to be" words usually come across much clearer. For an example, the preamble of the U.S. Constitution stands as a fine example of natural E-prime.

Nor have I heard its advocates demand E-prime for all expressions. In some cases E-prime would hinder the aim of its authors. For example, in the use of colloquial language, satire, jokes, lies, religious scripture, advertisements, or propaganda, E-prime could actually block the author's intent.

For example, the Army's motto, "Be all you can be," works as a powerful propaganda ploy to get naive boys to join the service. The motto appears so grandiose, yet what does it mean? The imagination can fill that empty "be" word with visions of heroic battle and grandeur. Converting the motto to E-prime would weaken it to some form such as, "Do all that you can do." Of course "do" here represents what the Army wants you to do such as clean toilets, run until exhausted, or risk death in a war that you haven't a clue about. The Army has recently changed its motto to an even scarier lie: "Be an Army of One." No doubt the Army here attempts to appeal to the individualist but the entire concept of soldiering involves submission to authority, and to follow orders without question. Yet can you imagine what might happen if a soldier actually believed himself as an army? I don't know about you but I'd stay a long distance from him.

The little word "is" gets used more than any other word in the English language. This gives politicians, advertisers and scam artists the ability to fool and lie to the public. Since "is" and "be" contain only two letters (or only one letter in contractions), the advertisers can make their lies short and concise. Falsehoods don't need lengthy explanations, and they tend to survive best when shortened to their easiest remembered forms.

Below describes some examples of famous advertisement slogans:

  • "Coke is it." (Coca-Cola)
  • "A diamond is foreever." (De Beers Consolidated)
  • "Guinness is good for you." (Guinness)
  • "Plop, plop, fizz, fizz, oh what a relief it is." (Alka Seltzer)
  • "Don't be vague. Ask for Haig." (Haig Scotch)
  • "It is. Are you?" (The Independent)
  • "You don't have to be Jewish to love Levy's." (Levy's Rye Bread)
  • "The future's bright. The future's Orange." (Orange)
  • "Where's the beef?" (Wendy's)

And here gives some other examples that work better without E-prime (but what in the world do they mean?):

  • "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM...." (God in Exodus 3:14)
  • "I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam." (Popeye the sailor man)
  • "The Truth is from thy Lord; so be not at all in doubt." (English translation of the Koran, 2.147)
  • "How are you?" (common greeting)
  • "You are my sunshine, my only sunshine." (folk song by Jimmie Davis)
  • "Will you be my Valentine?" (Valentine saying)
  • "Is that all there is?" (Song sung by Peggy Lee)

Of course anyone can express vagueness and falsehoods just as easily with E-prime, but it wouldn't have the impact without "to be" forms. So if you want to lie, deceive, or convert someone, stay away from E-prime.

OhSoIntoCats from The Sand Wastes Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#105: May 22nd 2011 at 9:56:56 AM

By the logic above, by this by getting rid of "is," you get rid of the need for the public to learn critical thinking skills.

Also, E' doesn't adress the use of "to be" as used in the progressive. "She was running" has a different meaning from "she ran," though I suppose we're supposed to get rid of the "was" because it makes an assumption about her state.

I mean all words do that. By saying "she" I'm making an assumption about her state as a female. We need to get rid of gender, too, because we can't find true gender without genetic tests.

edited 22nd May '11 10:03:14 AM by OhSoIntoCats

PDown It's easy, mmkay? Since: Jan, 2012
It's easy, mmkay?
#106: May 22nd 2011 at 10:03:33 AM

But by removing the potential to lie, you also remove the potential to tell the truth... In fact, you also remove the potential to have a concept of truth at all.

At first I didn't realize I needed all this stuff...
BetsyandtheFiveAvengers Since: Feb, 2011
#107: May 22nd 2011 at 10:06:14 AM

I just read all of the posts for this, and I still don't understand: is everyone debating the effectiviness of E-Prime in writing or speaking?

OhSoIntoCats from The Sand Wastes Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#108: May 22nd 2011 at 10:14:26 AM

Also, "is" versus other verbs make the sentences mean totally different things. Take for example "he is sick" versus "he feels sick" versus "he seems sick". 'Is' creates a feeling of sureness. He is sick, such a fact is obvious. He feels sick, he experiences signs of sickness right now. He seems sick, you're not sure of sickness but you perceive signs of sickness from him and he may or may not be aware of this.

Is creates certainty. Whether or not this feeling of certainty is correct (he may or may not be sick), but the fact that one can portray the feeling of certainty is the important part. This certainty may lead to morally ambiguous usage by advertisements but nonetheless it's an important part of the language.

KillerClowns Since: Jan, 2001
#109: May 22nd 2011 at 10:28:37 AM

I'm just gonna let James French (a computer scientist, not to be confused with a murderer of the same name) handle this one for now, though not all arguments are directly relevant (#9 is only important if we're suggesting wide-spread adoption instead of personal use, for instance).

EDIT: #6 is especially relevant, in my humble opinion, because it demonstrates that E-prime merely exacerbates the very problem it was designed to prevent.

edited 22nd May '11 10:38:10 AM by KillerClowns

jewelleddragon Also known as Katz from Pasadena, CA Since: Apr, 2009
Also known as Katz
#110: May 22nd 2011 at 5:31:53 PM

[up]Yeah, that's a great summary.

For speaking and general usage, manipulating language with the purpose of manipulating societal thoughts and attitudes is a terrible idea. It's basically [[1984 Newspeak]]: Trying to prevent people from even thinking about something forbidden, much less communicating it, by making it impossible to say. What gives E-primers the right?

Also, people won't go along with it because most people won't agree with you (if they did, the attitude you were trying to eliminate wouldn't exist in the first place): I'm not the only person in this thread who thinks "what if the green I see is different from the green you see?" befits a bunch of stoners more than a serious conversation.

For writing, E! could be a useful exercise, but exercises rarely produce good stories; pretty much by definition, constraining what you can do produces a work that is stilted and awkward. Cutting a tool out of the toolbox because it gets used too much is a bad alternative to just learning how to use it judiciously (see also the much-maligned passive voice).

The clincher, of course, is that QQQQQ has not been using E!. If E! were actually useful for communication, she would.

OhSoIntoCats from The Sand Wastes Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#111: May 22nd 2011 at 5:54:17 PM

[up] E' seems like it could be useful when understanding difficult theoretical concepts ("light is both a particle and a wave" versus "light behaves as both a particle and a wave") because it pares down something that might be confusing and seemingly inherently conflicting into something more readily digestible. Kind of like looking at an Eldritch Abomination and not saying it is and abomination but merely looks like one might make it less scary.

jewelleddragon Also known as Katz from Pasadena, CA Since: Apr, 2009
Also known as Katz
#112: May 22nd 2011 at 6:22:33 PM

[up]But there's never a need to use E! because E! is a subset of English; its capabilities are strictly lesser. You can say that there are times when the to-be verb is inappropriate and misleading and should not be used, but that's not using E!, that's just using English appropriately. You're only actually using E! if you use it even when it isn't already the better way to say something.

OhSoIntoCats from The Sand Wastes Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#113: May 22nd 2011 at 6:23:56 PM

[up] this is true.

Logic is hard for me sometimes.

PDown It's easy, mmkay? Since: Jan, 2012
It's easy, mmkay?
#114: May 22nd 2011 at 6:32:21 PM

Is. grin

In any case, I have my own, less stupid variant on English, and I really wish that everyone else would pick it up. In it, any statements are naturally assumed to be opinions or beliefs of the person speaking. For example, "I love Rebecca Black's Friday" is a valid sentence, with an equivalent meaning to "Rebecca Black's Friday is awesome". Since awesomeness is not an objective trait, any statement calling something awesome is assumed to be a subjective statement.

In short, TV Tropes can segregate subjective statements, but normal conversation can't, and E-Prime isn't even very good as an attempt to segregate subjective statements.

At first I didn't realize I needed all this stuff...
Tzetze DUMB from a converted church in Venice, Italy Since: Jan, 2001
DUMB
#115: May 22nd 2011 at 6:36:18 PM

I'm not the only person in this thread who thinks "what if the green I see is different from the green you see?" befits a bunch of stoners more than a serious conversation.

That's fairly insulting to large parts of philosophy, don't you think?

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.
QQQQQ from Canada Since: Jul, 2011
#116: May 22nd 2011 at 7:00:53 PM

Because when you use an adjective, you're effectively saying that "object has property of adjective." In the blue ford example, it wouldn't work to have the phrase "blue ford" at all. You would need to say "appeared to be a ford with the property of blueness". Because the original one meant blue —> ford. Even though we're not saying that the ford was definitely blue in that sentence, we're still saying that fords can have the inherent property of blueness in theory which is against E'.

So to properly speak E', you must discard all adjectives, because every time you use an adjective you're using short hand for X is Y. Just because the word "is" isn't visibly present doesn't mean it's not there, as with the Russian example, and in AAE.

See post no. 28. I've emphasised key points.

By the logic above, by this by getting rid of "is", you get rid of the need for the public to learn critical thinking skills.

Why? I don't follow.

Also, E' doesn't adress the use of "to be" as used in the progressive. "She was running" has a different meaning from "she ran, " though I suppose we're supposed to get rid of the "was" because it makes an assumption about her state.
Also, "is" versus other verbs make the sentences mean totally different things. Take for example "he is sick" versus "he feels sick" versus "he seems sick". 'Is' creates a feeling of sureness. He is sick, such a fact is obvious. He feels sick, he experiences signs of sickness right now. He seems sick, you're not sure of sickness but you perceive signs of sickness from him and he may or may not be aware of this.

Is creates certainty. Whether or not this feeling of certainty is correct (he may or may not be sick), but the fact that one can portray the feeling of certainty is the important part. This certainty may lead to morally ambiguous usage by advertisements but nonetheless it's an important part of the language.

Read post no. 52.

Oh, I'm sorry: E-Prime appears a clunky style of English when used heavily.

It's a good guideline for diversifying your prose, but not a good rule.

I did not intend to suggest E' as a hard rule to follow; consider it as another option for perceiving our World. Also, did you read this post? The site I have linked there consists primarily of E', except to highlight "is."

But by removing the potential to lie, you also remove the potential to tell the truth...

Why? I don't follow. E' does not remove lying; of course you have possibility of making false statements. But with Aristotlian spooks discouraged, and describing the spacetime events you speak of, you can more readily notice assumptions about what a thing "really is".

Currently I'm at someone else's computer; I will try offering more full responses to your questions when I get back home. I apologize if I seem passive referring to posts I have made already. James French's arguments against E' looks interesting; I've read through it, I notice his ideas about E' seem rather misconceived.

Speaking of which, I like to see your pictures of E' as you know it, if I may. (There is no such language as E-Bang (E!), sadly yet. But it would seem like another interesting mode of English, if a linguist may kindly flesh it out..)

edited 22nd May '11 7:25:41 PM by QQQQQ

PDown It's easy, mmkay? Since: Jan, 2012
It's easy, mmkay?
#117: May 22nd 2011 at 7:37:46 PM

Basically, I suppose what I'm saying is that I agree that there are no absolutely known truths. There's absolute truth, but we can never be completely sure of what that is, we can just be more or less sure. So, "AFAIK" is assumed to apply to all statements, so clauses along the lines of AFAIK are redundant with reality itself. E' forces people to acknowledge that they don't know anything whenever they want to say something, which clutters communication with philosophical rambling in a foolhardy attempt to diffuse conflict before it begins.

If I were to make an English variant, it would be one designed to abolish or discourage clauses to the effect of "but I'm not completely sure", as that's redundant to the fact that no one is completely sure of anything and just clutters discourse.

edited 22nd May '11 7:39:09 PM by PDown

At first I didn't realize I needed all this stuff...
jewelleddragon Also known as Katz from Pasadena, CA Since: Apr, 2009
Also known as Katz
#118: May 22nd 2011 at 10:02:03 PM

There is no such language as E-Bang (E!)

Oops. In the interests of honesty, I won't correct my previous post.

OhSoIntoCats from The Sand Wastes Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#119: May 22nd 2011 at 10:06:30 PM

[up] Wouldn't it be E factorial?

PDown It's easy, mmkay? Since: Jan, 2012
It's easy, mmkay?
#120: May 22nd 2011 at 10:19:12 PM

E: You know, I think I'll claim E Bang for the "uncluttered English" I mentioned earlier.

E': I think the being I identify as myself might consider E Bang to represent the "uncluttered English" that I might have mentioned earlier.

E!: I'll claim E Bang for the "uncluttered English" I mentioned earlier.

Let's do another example! (Unrelated to anything in real life, purely for linguistic reference.)

E: I was wrong when I said that women were inferior to men.

E': I think that my earlier statement that one could consider women as inferior to men might lack validity.

E!: Women are not inferior to men.

edited 22nd May '11 10:23:42 PM by PDown

At first I didn't realize I needed all this stuff...
Teraus Awesome Lightning Mantra from The Origin of Dreams Since: Jul, 2011
Awesome Lightning Mantra
#121: Sep 4th 2012 at 11:04:38 AM

@QQQQQ: While I agree that many misunderstandings could be avoided by reducing the misuse of the verb "to be", it's my general opinion that the best way to improve communication, in general, is not to abolish concepts, but to create new ones. I often find myself unable to put certain thoughts to words, because I believe that there are not enough concepts to express my ideas in the languages I know. Cutting out words would only make this even more complicated, and lies and misunderstandings are perfectly capable of occurring regardless of the presence of a specific verb, as far as I can see.

The main problem I see with abolishing a verb as important as "to be" is because of the existence of definitions. I am, by definition, a human. This cannot be a false statement, because it's a matter of definition. Some people may disagree that I am human, but, in that case, they are not respecting the commonly accepted definition of the word (communication would be next to impossible if people couldn't come to a consensus - at least partial - regarding the definition of most words). I could say, naturally, "I have every characteristic necessary to consider myself a human", but isn't that just a more complex way of saying "I am human"?

It seems to me that the issue you have is related to the existence of conflicting ideas, misunderstandings and badly formed statements. In that case, a better way to mitigate these problems would be through education in general, not by abolishing words, at least in my opinion.

Edit: furthermore, deleting a word would be mostly ineffective by itself, as most words can be safely replaced by their definition.

edited 4th Sep '12 11:08:48 AM by Teraus

"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."
QQQQQ from Canada Since: Jul, 2011
#122: Sep 4th 2012 at 12:01:43 PM

[up] You have the impression that this would be akin to Orwellian Newspeak(R) - to force away words out of people's grasp, so to reform thought. I think the latter part is true. One of E-Prime's points is that it forces people to describe their reality in a manner more specific to what occurs in observable space-time.. rather than Aristotelian essences, the supposed "is"-ness of something, which can lead to loading that something's "is"-ness with (implicit) biases, pejoratives and semantic spooks — the things that irk both me and you.

The main problem I see with abolishing a verb as important as "to be" is because of the existence of definitions.

Count Korzybski, the pioneer semanticist, said that humans are the symbol-using species and therefore those who control symbols control human destiny. Stokely Carmichael, a Black civil rights leader of the 1960s, said it this way: "The power to define is the power to control."

If you are arguing for racial equality with a man who keeps using the word “nigger,” you will eventually discover that you are making no headway and that some barrier prevents clear communication. If you are discussing censorship laws with a lady who keeps using the word “smut,” you will experience that same sense of banging your head against a brick wall. If you attempt to reason with a Marxist, the word “bourgeoisie” will eventually be invoked to banish any coherence or logic in what you have been saying. And so on.

What is a woman, what is a QQQQQ one troper keeps referring to, what is rationality? If you take these biases for granted, if you aren't aware of your own innate creativity - your central nervous system interpreting those myriads of sense-bombardments from the outside of your body

Most men have a favorite brand of beer which they insist tastes better than others, but when blindfolded, as Packard once documented in The Hidden Persuaders, these men cannot identify their favorite brand from a selection of five. The superior taste they ordinarily experience must be considered a hypnotically induced hallucination.

If you read entirely all the posts that happened in this thread, you can see the point illustrated in more detail, hopefully making more sense to you. I'll give you a good hint - pay attention to how the people react to what I say.

edited 4th Sep '12 12:09:31 PM by QQQQQ

Teraus Awesome Lightning Mantra from The Origin of Dreams Since: Jul, 2011
Awesome Lightning Mantra
#123: Sep 4th 2012 at 12:21:08 PM

I'll read the other posts when I have the time.

"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."
Add Post

Total posts: 123
Top