Talk:E-Prime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the E-Prime article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] temporal meaning

What about the temporal meaning "to be" can have, e.g. "Breakfast is at 8 o'clock"?

I think that falls into the category of "location".
"My watch says __ O'Clock" YhnMzw 18:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Or, more idiomatically, "I've got __ O'Clock". While this doesn't say *how* you have the time, it does make the statement relative rather than absolute. -- Josh Triplett 05:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
We will eat breakfast at 8h. Breakfast will occur at 8h. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.129.51 (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] examples?

Need more examples. Could you do a passage in journey to the centre of the earth in e-prime? Please reply in E prime.

As our heroes journeyed towards the centre of the earth, they suddenly realized a profound truth: that E-Prime sucks, that E-Prime rapes your mind, murder it, munches it, and spits it out. --[1] :)
David Gerrold wrote two entire novels in E prime, Under the Eye of God and A Covenant of Justice. It might be appropriate to point these out in the examples section? 83.104.250.235
Actually A Covenant of Justice isn't entirely in E-Prime. Does anyone know of other novels written in E-Prime?
I don't know of any novels, but I do know of a non-fiction book written in E-Prime: "Quantum Psychology" by Robert Anton Wilson. Widipedia has a stub on it. Studentofisless 08:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be easy to find poetry written (unintentionally) in E-Prime. Benjamin.s.quigley (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] correction

An anonymous user wrote:

CORRECTION: the inventor of E-Prime was a student and follower of Alfred Korzybski, Dr. Bourland.


W. Paul Tabaka http://Korzybski.Org

[edit] Should the article itself be in E-Prime?

The following sentence doesn't seem E-Prime to me, due to the use of are: There are of course different forms of the verb. --romanm 13:37, 21 Nov 2003 (CET)

That's now fixed. I mean, er, I fixed that. --Brion
Fair enough. It was written in E-Prime-Prime, a variant of E-Prime (that I just made up) that omits the pernicious "identity" and "predication" forms but allows the others (in this case, "existence"). —Ashley Y 21:05, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
L. Michael Hall in his Communication magic mentions E-Choice, a variant of E-Prime that seems the same as your E-Prime-Prime. Any knowledge of E-Choice, anybody? Mkoval 20:41, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] links

The link "Working with E-Prime - http://www.generalsemantics.org/Education/WEPrime.htm " is dead.

As is the "Intro to E-Prime" link now (http://www.generalsemantics.org/Articles/TOBECRIT.HTM). 63.88.178.130 20:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] third person

is it even possible to talk in the third person in e-prime? - plasticlax

Sure, why not? Instead of "He is amazing." one says, "He amazes people." E-Prime merely forces all equations to be reformed to include a context. The subject cannot be ascribed a trait without providing a context that trait comes from. "A is B-like" becomes "A appears B-like to so-and-so.". The E-Prime rules constrain english in such a way as to remove a certain kind of ambiguity. "A = B" by itself includes no context. A and B may both stand as tokens representing some third entity, and may be interchangable in some symbol system. A and B may refer to distinct entities which are functionally equivalent within some specific domain. E-Prime encourages the speaker or writer to include that extra information in the statement.
E-Prime adds redundant information in many cases. For example, I tried to phrase all the sentances in this comment as E-Prime just as an exercise for myself, but the context I added in each case could easily be inferred from nearby text both in and out of my comment. Most readers would probably find a more succinct style easier to read. Appropriately enough, E-Prime's value varies with the context the speaker or writer uses it in.--Crag

ok, but isn't third person always inferring? i mean, when you say "he amazes people," you still are not really providing context. you are assuming the omniscient position of someone like a narrator who simply "knows" what other people think. wouldn't it be more appropriate to eliminate the third person all together and say things like this: "many people have told me that they consider him amazing." to me that is even more honest. i HATE third person. it has no place in honest discussion or scientific inquiry because it pretends that the author is more than some finite being with subjective experiences. anyway, just a little rant. do you know a language (real or artificial) that goes farther than e-prime? - plasticlax

I find it interesting that you would say that, as it strikes me that writing from the NPOV eliminates the omniscient quality from writing. Wikipedia speaks in the third person, but it avoids making point-blank statements about what people think, do, or *cough*are*cough*. Combined with E-Prime, Wikipedia would probably seem even more neutral to the casual reader while increasing clarity in most cases. -Deicidus 06:42, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean "wouldn't it be more appropriate to eliminate the third person all together and say things like this: "many people have told me that they consider him amazing." to me that is even more honest. i HATE third person."? In case you didn't notice, "many people" exists as the third person plural ("they"). It makes me suspect that you lack experience or understanding. You DD know English capitalisation rules, don't you? YhnMzw 20:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article written in E-Prime considered a violation of npov.

This article about E-Prime being written in E-Prime is cute, but I consider it to be a violation of NPOV. The beliefs of the authors have clearly influenced the article. An article about E-Prime should be about E-Prime, and nothing more. No other purpose. Having the article be written in E-Prime is clearly biased and non-neutral. It attempts to show E-Prime as useful and worthy of advocacy by being an example of it. That an article written *about* E-Prime has been written by E-Prime speakers (therefore advocates?) in E-Prime is not neutral, or consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Samrolken 09:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't entirely see this as an NPOV issue, but I basically agree. Articles should be written in Wikipedia house style, not according to the topic's style. Having part of the article in E-Prime to illustrate its use makes some sense. But not all of it. VV 21:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Besides, dictating that the article be written entirely in E-Prime is creating more work for editors (see m:instruction creep). Never sacrifice ease of expansion for... cuteness.
VV's right that a lengthy example of E-Prime would be an excellent illustration of E-Prime. However, I don't suggest keeping one section of the article itself in E-Prime, for the same reason as I cited above (instruction creep). Instead, let's have a two-column, side by side example (see article). • Benc • 21:11, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. People should be allowed to write in any manner they wish as long as it gets the point across, whether this article or any other. If someone happens to write a paragraph without the use of the word "is" where is the proof that they were consciously using E-prime? You want to go in modify it just to put a few "is's" in there because you're paranoid that the contents of paragraph are not objective? Content is what matters ..not the style of writing. RJII 18:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is, after all, en.wikipedia. Not whatever the E-Prime.wikipedia would be called. Hyacinth 02:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I consider E-Prime a very useful (but primitive) tool that aids (but doesn't automatically ensures) NPOV writing; and I do want to write wikipedia texts in E-Prime on occasion. Please don't insert extra "is:s" just out of spite. E-Prime should not be enforced on Wikipedia, but it definitely should be allowed; and everyone wanting to write NPOV should consider using it. --anon
I agree that Wikipedia ought to allow E-Prime but not to enforce it. To force anyone to use or not use forms of 'to be' seems unnecessary. However, the idea of an English Prime wikipedia intrigues me. Perhaps we ought to consider it. Then maybe we wouldn't have E-Prime proponents and detractors at each other's throats quite so much. Matt V. 10:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm voicing a decisive maybe. French language' is not written in French, which supports quite a number of the people who want the article written in "Standard English"; however American English is written in American English, and British English is written in British English. Wikipedia policy encourages use of appropriate dialect in handling dialect-specific texts. If we want, we can treat E-Prime as a dialect, meaning it should be used to write the article; however, if we treat it as simply a style, the style itself does not conflict with Wikipedia's "House Style", if we could even acknowledge the existence of such a consensus style (which, after viewing pages such as Body piercing and Inherently funny word, I have my doubts.) samwaltz 20:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • My 0.02€ I think the best way of using E-prime is as a dialect; just like sometimes it is better to write in mancunian, texan, or whatever to convey something. One could point at the guideline that articles about Britain should preferably be written in British, about Oz in Australian, etc. More, maybe it should be encouraged to become part of one's idiolect when writing for wikipedia.--victor falk (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indicating presence?

How would one say they were present somewhere in E-prime? I can't think of any other way of saying "You were there", or "I will be there". Ryan Salisbury 21:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"You were there" becomes "You arrived there" or "You stayed there" or "You stood there" etc.
"I will be there" becomes "I will arrive there", etc.
When converting beingness into something else, one can ask oneself questions about that beingness: how does the writer know of it, what caused it, what was going on. E-Prime capitalizes on the idea that "beingness" has no meaning outside some defining context. Something cannot "be" without having some kind of relationship to the universe in which it exists. Rather than merely asserting that something is, E-Prime describes a part of that object's relationship to its universe. Even assertions about abstractions can be re-phrased in terms more specific than simple identity or equality. "A is A" could be re-phrased as "Attempts to deny or subvert an object's identity will lead to frustration." "One plus one is two" could be re-phrased as "The number 'two' represents the quantity composed of the unit value 'one' combined with itself."
This conversion process may result in necessarily verbose re-phrasings, and for that reason I doubt E-Prime will ever be popular in everyday speach or writing. However, E-Prime demands that the writer think carefully about what they mean and whether what they write matches it, which makes E-Prime a useful tool.
--Crag 01:31, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)


I have found another way of expressing this 'is' of location (and description.) Instead of saying "I 'am' here", one can say "I find myself here". This seems to work for all tenses. I believe that the Romance Languages employ this expression, as I encountered it in my study of French. I sometimes hear it used in English as well, no doubt due to the French influence, and ususally in English I hear it used to descibe something besides location. For example: "I found her quite pleasant", or "I found them delicious". While I find more cumbersome to use than 'is', it seems more accurate in that it pretty explicitly states that we describe our perception of the thing describes, and not some sort of objective ultimate reality. Matt V. 10:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


One could also express "One plus one is two" in E-Prime, far less verbosely, as "One plus one equals two".
Right, but then what's the difference between that usage of an identity verb ("equals") and the prohibited "is"? Nothing but irrational OCD. Either avoid "equals" as well (which I do on the rare occasions when I write in E-Prime) or just forget about it.

The use of the word "equals" in mathematics seems well-defined and need not violate the principles behind E-Prime. As for other uses of the word, see my response to Spaceman. Dan 02:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sally is fat. Sally equals fat. Hmm, that makes sense. Good point.--SpacemanAfrica 00:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you meant that seriously, but "Sally equals fat," does not seem like an English sentence. If for some reason you wanted to combine E-Prime with leet, you'd want to avoid these non-mathematical uses of "equals". Except you may not actually want to think clearly and express yourself rigorously while using leet. I mean, can you think of any reason to write 'Sally = t3h suxx0r' that seems compatible with the purpose of E-Prime? Dan 02:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that mathematics represents a somewhat unique case in the differentiation between 'is' and 'equals'. Numbers in mathematics represent quantities. Imagine this in terms of quantities of something concrete, such as cherries. A group of three cherries and a group of four cherries, if combined into a single group, does in fact equal a group of seven cherries. However, this does not mean that the concept of two groups of cherries, one having three and one having four cherries, does not differ in any way from (or 'is') a group of seven cherries. Try drawing a picture if all these words seem confusing.
The substitution of 'is' for 'equals' in mathematics seems like a result of using grammer in a sloppy way. "Three plus four is seven" seems like shorthand for "Three plus four is equal to seven", which in turn appears as the passive voice version of the expression "Three plus four equals seven". The use of 'is' in mathematics therefore appears as an auxiliary use of 'to be'. Korzybski did not take particular issue with this usage of 'to be', and neither really did Dr. Bourland. E-Prime however, supposedly in the interest of simplicity, does away with all forms of 'to be', and so we may legitimately say in perfect English Prime, that "one plus one equals two." I hope that this clears up the difference between using 'is' and 'equals' in mathematics.--Matt V. 11:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia Articles in E-Prime

Could anyone give any suggestions for writing encyclopedic articles in E-Prime? I've had the most trouble with introductory sentences. The notion of "beingness" seems to be integral to the traditional methods of starting articles, and nearly every article I've found starts by saying what the subject "is" or "was".

For example, in Prince of the South, the first sentence reads "Prince of the South...The Hits is an compilation album by rapper Mystikal released by Jive Records." All of the rephrasings that I can think of seem to take the sentence's emphasis off of "Prince of the South", the article's title. Can anyone recommend some good Wikipedia articles written in E-Prime? -- Creidieki 18:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Prince of the South...The Hits, a compilation album released by Jive Records, features the rapper Mystikal. - Not that I personally would worry too much about taking emphasis off "Prince of the South" in this immediate context: we have the title of the article and the bolding of the album title to remind us of the subject-matter. Take a wider view with the help of E-Prime! -- Personally, I try to use E-Prime wherever feasible - and I too frequently find the opening sentences of articles difficult. I fear that we have a hefty dose of the confusion between a dictionary and an encyclopaedia here. Sometimes it helps to start with something like: "The concept of X deals with ..." or "The word [or phrase] X refers to ...". But in the worst cases, where an article or a paragraph states: Person X was born in 999", I find myself falling back on structures as for Prince of the South above... - Pedant17 12:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About the verbal continous forms...

As I understood E-prime, only some of the uses of the verb to be should be avoided. The verb "to be" in English acts also as a modal verb, for example, in present continous or past continous forms. Many other languages make use of other language resources for the continous sense. That's why I think that the translator didn't do a good job translating in "Alice in Wonderland", changing the verb "was reading" to "read". I think some of the sense ("while" the action was performed) disappeared, instead of precising the description. Anyway, maybe I misunderstood E-prime when learning it, or I misremember. :)

I guess we can call this discussion "to be" or not "to be".

Funny, all the while reading this, I was wondering what an E-prime version of Hamlet would look like... "To exist, or not to exist, that becomes the question" I suppose... Somehow, I don't think that'll ever catch on... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
This doesn't seem really that hard to rephrase in principle, but if one does not have the poetic talent of Shakespeare (i.e., most of us) the result may not be as pleasing.
To live, or not to live: I ask this question:
Whether the mind hath more nobility to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh inherits, this consummation
We devoutly wish for; to die, to sleep
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, that rubs;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil
....
Whig 12:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Advocates may also assert"?

I was struck by the phrasing, "E-Prime's advocates may also assert ..." and "Detractors might observe ...." The may and might seem like weaselly ways to get around the lack of attribution here. If these views and observations about E-Prime have indeed been expressed, I (and, I imagine, others) would find attribution and links useful. If these points originate with this article, then shouldn't they be presented as such? --Sharpner 18:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to find a good source for the advocate position later. I hope someone can also find the source of the detractor argument, and perhaps explain it so it doesn't seem so laughable. Seems to me that if other languages can express the 'is of identity' in ways that English can't, that proves nothing except that we'd have trouble finding an equivalent of E-Prime for those other languages. (Certainly E-Prime speakers would want to avoid saying "The apple red," lest they defeat the purpose of the technique. But we'd try to avoid 'sentences' like that one anyway, for obvious reasons.) And why would it matter that many languages already distinguish "existence"/"location" from "identity"/"predication"? What does that have to do with the argument? Dan 18:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, what does the part about "E-Prime equivalents" mean? Foreign languages do not count as E-Prime. Why not say "equivalents in those languages," or just "equivalents"? Dan 18:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


The criticism section seems a little mild. Doesn't the whole e-prime project miss a pretty fundamental point about not constraining ordinary language? not to mention that English has well over a billion speakers (including those who speak it as a second-language) with many regional variations and countless idioms, so the idea of promoting something as radical as cutting out a basic verb like 'to be' verges on the ludicrous. i'm all for sympathetic understanding of new and strange ideas but e-prime is, at the end of the day, fucking loopy.


(I would like to first and foremost admit to sometimes purposefully using E-Prime, at least in writing, and consider myself somewhat of a proponent.)
The above criticism would appear stronger to me if the anonymous critic had refrained from stating his or her opinion of E-Prime as an objective fact, and had perhaps used a word such as 'unreasonable' in place of 'f**cking loopy'. Please note that I do not intend this as a personal attack on the anonymous user, nor any sort of attack for that matter. I also agree with the initial criticism about insufficient attribution in the article.
I have done some study on the topic of E-Prime and General Semantics, and can say that the devisors, proponents, and users of English Prime seem to intend it as a means of freeing the English Language from several often unconsciously held ideas. They have laid out their reasons for doing so in at least several publications. If we strive to write articles with as much clarity and objectivity as possible, should not we do so in our discussions as well? To attack an idea with expletives, seemingly without an adequately researched understanding of it, does us far less good than would informed and cooperative discussion, or at least a polite statement of opinion. Studentofisless 08:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, what "fundamental point" do you mean? I use E-Prime as a way to help my own thought processes. Bourland recommended it to people who'd already shown interest in changing their own speech patterns for this purpose. What does the number of English speakers have to do with individual use of E-Prime? Or do you know of someone proposing a law to make people speak this way? Dan 18:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


No, really. If we plan to include logically flawed critiques in the article, someone will have to take the blame. Give a citation in the next week or so or say goodbye to the anonymous strawman. Dan 22:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chomsky's criticism

As I said at the talk page for general semantics, I don't think the quote about the verb "to be" comes from Korzybski. I don't think Bourland said it either. He advocates eliminating all forms [of 'to be'] for the sake of simplicity, not because every single use leads to problems. Dan 21:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please defend the inclusion of this quote and the rest of the passage. Dan 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'is' in the definition

I have inserted 'is' in the definition following the rules from Guide to writing better articles

We don't want an article on Basic English written in Basic English, or an article on a dialect written in this dialect, so why should we have E-Prime here?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.199.22.8 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC2)

I understand your position. I thought that having 'is' in the definition of E-Prime seemed to imply a disagreement with the principles of E-Prime, and thus violated the goal of objectivity in article writing. I see now that Wikipedia has adopted a linguistic theory which only allows forms of 'to be' to get used in the opening definition of an article. My apologies.
I do, however, find it inaccurate to state that any particular word 'is' that which it represents. I also think that it would improve our credibility to replace the 'is' in our opening definitions with 'means to some people', or maybe 'means to many people', and openly acknowledge that no true authority over the meanings of words or universal agreement upon meaning exists in the English language(s). Otherwise we find ourselves making meanings rather than reporting on them. Of course you may dismiss this as E-Prime mumbo-jumbo, and I expect that most will, but if you seriously look into this idea you may find yourself eventually in agreement. Matt V. 09:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The change was made for stylistic rather than ideological reasons. Most of the people reading this article do not know anything about E-Prime and I'm afraid pure E-Prime does not facilitate understanding for unprepared readers. You can see that no other changes were made, I just wanted to break the spell of (almost) pure E-Prime and remind the authors that they are writing for boringly unsophisticated general audience and what seems to be fun could be considered somewhat clumsy in form by others. To win hearts you have to be patient. If you present your ideology in a more conventional way maybe the impact will be greater? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.199.22.166 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC2)
Thanks, I understand even better now. What may seem like an obvious variation to someone engaged in converting to E-Prime (or other variations of language) could certainly confuse someone unprepared for it, especially if they do not at first understand fully the content of that particular article. I find your question about presentation quite thought provoking as well. Thanks for your insight, and for your assistance in stepping outside of my reality tunnel (or expanding it, really.)--Matt V. 07:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Implied "is"

Should the sentence "Spot, the big dog that lives down the street, ran away last week." be considered E-Prime or not? It seems like a sly way of getting around equating spot to the big dog that lives down the street by using commas instead of is. Mikmd 16:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly call it E-Prime. It may or may not achieve the purpose of E-Prime, depending on whether or not the slight pause to translate the sentence caused the speaker to think about certain issues. In some cases I would use various words -- for example, terms like "namely" or "for example" -- to show the human origin of the link between parts of the sentence. But I don't think that would work here. Dan 20:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
An is is not necessarily implied - the implied term may well be appears to us as or has an identity as. Because those are awkward phrases, they would be replaced by a comma in most circumstances.

You just have to think creatively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.98.233 (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Structural" problems?

I don't understand how this article is using the words "structure" and "structural". For instance, in the "History" paragraph:

Korzybski had found two forms of the verb 'to be'—the 'is' of identity and the 'is' of predication—
to have structural problems. For example, the sentence "The coat is red" has no observer, the
sentence "We see the coat as red" (where "we" indicates observers) appears more correct...

What is the structural problem with is? Is it that "is" leads to sentences that don't express agency? Or that statements with is masquerade as "objective" statements about the world, without naming the observer whose point of view the statement expresses? Either way, it's unclear to me how this is a "structural" problem. After all, sentences that start "it's unclear to me" use is and name the observer, so there's nothing about is that forces the sentence to have no observer.

There's also this in the "criticisms" section:

Noam Chomsky, widely regarded as the father of modern linguistics, has commented on
Alfred Korzybski's criticisms of the use of the verb "to be" ("any proposition containing
the word "is" [or its cognates 'are,' be' etc] creates a linguistic structural confusion
which will eventually give birth to serious fallacies"

This is apparently a direct quote (though it has a {{fact}} tag), but it's quite unclear what a "linguistic structural confusion" is.

--Akhilleus (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, Korzybski seems to say that the linguistic structures or relations that he calls the "is of identity" and the "is of predication" do not correspond to any relations in our scientific model of the world. (You can see some of the quotes and arguments that he gives in support of this claim at general semantics.) Note that he explicitly refuses to define "structure" or "relation" in Science and Sanity, so his usage may or may not agree with your definition (if any). Oh, and I doubt he ever said that second quote.
While Bourland does not seem to agree with this alleged statement, it would still allow him to say to certain critics, "Look! You say that E-Prime goes against Korzybski's views, but actually he attacked the verb 'to be' more harshly than I do!" The fact that I can't find him making this argument suggests one of the following:
  • Korzybski never said it.
  • Korzybski said it, but in context he clearly didn't mean to endorse E-Prime.
  • He said it after senilty set in, or at some other time when his words would not interest proponents of general semantics for some reason. Dan 19:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It's good to see that Wikipedia hasn't introduced this vagueness in the use of "structure", but it's present in the work of Korzybski himself. Perhaps the issue can be sidestepped by re-rewriting the section without using the word "structure"? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Why? I may approach this from an unusual position, so help me out here. I would expect readers to interpret the word "structure" using an analogy such as the difference between structural problems and personal problems in an organization. Sticking different people in the slots would not solve a structural problem. By this interpretation, the passage says that changing the speaker's intention or the topic of his/her discussion would not remove all the problems with the "'is' of identity" and the "'is' of predication", because to some extent these problems stem from the way the words relate to each other and how they (don't) relate to the world of science. This agrees with my view of what Korzybski meant. Do you mean to say that you expect readers to interpret it differently?
I do see a different problem with this passage. It seems to endorse Korzybski's findings as the official position of the article. Barring objections, I'll try to reword it to attribute this POV to Korzybski. Dan 22:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The basic problem I'm having with the article is that it never makes clear what Korbyznski's problem with 'is' is. The article's use of "structure" and "structural" doesn't help me understand the difficulty with the various uses of "to be". Your analogy with structural/personal problems in an organization is helpful and seems like a plausible interpretation of how Korzybski might have been using these terms, but it's not what the article says. Here's some sentences that puzzle me:
Korzybski had found two forms of the verb 'to be'—the 'is' of identity and the 'is' of predication—
to have structural problems. For example, the sentence "The coat is red" has no observer,
the sentence "We see the coat as red" (where "we" indicates observers) appears more correct...
Korzybski advocated raising one's awareness of structural issues generally through training
in general semantics.
The way this is written, the "structural problem" with the "is of identity/predication" is that there is "no observer". Because I can write a sentence that has the "is of identity" that has an observer--"To me, 'Smoke on the Water' is the best rock song ever"--it's not clear how this is a structural problem.
It's also not clear whether the sentence "The coat is red" is an instance of the "is of identity" or the "is of predication".
Basically, I just want a clearer and more explicit description of Korbyzski's argument. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, general semantics has more on Korzybski's argument (as opposed to Bourland's). If reading that article closely doesn't clear up your confusion, I can try again. For now, let me just point out that your example still seems to contradict Joe Music Fan's opinion that Hound Dog "is" the best rock song ever. Rephrasing it to say "I'd call this the best rock song ever" would remove the contradiction by bringing us back into the world of experience or observations. We could also say "I like this song best" or "The following formal criteria for calling one song better than another tell us to call 'Smoke on the Water' the best rock song ever, as you can see from this rigorous logical proof," depending on what we actually want to say. Dan 19:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Dan, thanks for the pointer to general semantics, but I think that this E-Prime article needs a clearer explanation of the issues with the various uses of 'is'. As someone who stumbled across this article without knowing anything about Korzybski's work, I don't find that it clearly explains why the 'is of identity' and the 'is of predication' are structurally deficient.
The section "Korzybski and to be" in the Korzybski article comes close to explaining what's going on (i.e. the structure of the verbal statement doesn't match the structure of the "real world"), but I'd like more detail--and I think it belongs in the E-Prime article.
As for your explanation, the sentence "To me, 'Smoke on the Water' is the best rock song ever" seems semantically equivalent to "'I call 'Smoke on the Water' the best rock song ever." Moreover, "I call 'Smoke on the Water' the best rock song ever" is pretty close to "I say that 'Smoke on the Water' is the best rock song ever." Each one of these sentences is clearly marked as the opinion of a particular person, so I don't think that any of them contradict Joe Music Fan, at least in the sense that he could say "Well, to me, 'Hound Dog' is the best rock song ever". (Clearly, these opinions are in conflict, but they don't logically exclude each other.)
I'll acknowledge that part of the problem is that from what I know so far I disagree with Korzybski's analysis, but I'd still like to understand it better. It's hard to truly disagree with something you don't understand. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for the delay. I'll try to do this sometime when I can see my notes, possibly Wed. Note, in the meantime, that you agree (assuming you mean what I think you mean by the word "semantically") that the version with "is" has no meaning in the real world unless we regard it as a slightly longer way of expressing the E-Prime sentence. Yet the verb might lead someone to think that it does have a different meaning, especially in the last version of the sentence. The E-Prime version concerns only words -- meaning sound waves, or marks on paper/monitors, or neurological events -- while the last version seems to refer to something else. Oh, and I left out the possibility of saying, "I want to call (foo) the best rock song ever." This also refers strictly to neurological events and/or subjective experience (science can't tell the difference). Dan 01:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I disagree with your interpretation of my comment, though--I'm saying that the sentence "To me, 'Smoke on the Water' is the best rock song ever" means the same thing as "I call 'Smoke on the Water' the best rock song ever." Moreover, I think the thought underlying the sentence "I call 'Smoke on the Water' the best rock song ever" is more naturally expressed as "I say that 'Smoke on the Water' is the best rock song ever." In other words, to me at least, the version with "is" seems like the most natural way for a speaker of standard English to express the idea that they like "Smoke on the Water" better than any other rock song.
I think in your response I'm seeing what is meant by "structural"--that the verb "is" makes an assertion about the way the world "really is", but language can only capture subjective phenomena. Therefore, "is" is deceptive, in that it pretends that a subjective opinion/perception/etc. is an objective statement about the world. Is that accurate? --Akhilleus (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much. Technically, Korzybski would say that language can't capture anything, but we can test our linguistic map against phenomena. If we believe in a "scientific object" or external world full of events that create phenomena, this suggests that we can make our map resemble that world in structure. (Oh, and why not say, "I like "Smoke on the Water" better than any other rock song"? Mmm, delicious dead horse.) Dan 03:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the subject

This article's "Criticism" section needs to describe criticism of E-prime, not criticism of the verb to be. For example, the construction "the rose seems red" is not semantically different from "the rose seems to be red" and merely serves to introduce doubt about the redness of the rose. The article needs to note how widespread the use of the verb to be is in various languages, including those that imply it without having it explicitly (like Arabic). The section currently called "Criticism" should then be renamed "Gosh, E-prime 'seems' swell." --Tysto 13:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone cite criticism of E-Prime? See the talk section on "Advocates may also assert". I've only refrained from deleting unsourced material so far because I wanted to fulfill that request from the son of Peleus first. (Oh, and the part about Basic English contradicts the Basic English article. See also Talk:General Semantics.) Dan 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a prophetic critic of something quite like E-Prime would be Orwell. The fundamental purpose of Newspeak was to eliminate modes of thinking by eliminating the linguistic modes that allowed those formations. Similarly, the purpose of E-Prime is to reorient the ontological framework of our minds by eliminating the formations that make conventional--- if even subjective or erroneous--- concepts of 'being' impossible to form in language. However well-meant the goals, changing modes of thought through elimination of language is clearly a deep concern for Orwell and clearly a goal of E-Prime. tuttlemsm

[edit] Inserted 'is' following Wikipedia's Guide

I have inserted 'is' in the definition following the rules from Guide to writing better articles Please don't be childish. Wikipedia's Basic English article is not written in Basic English.

Oh my God, it is partly written in Basic English. Are they crazy? 212.25.104.155 02:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The best was our lipogram, which was originally written completely without the letter 'e'. - SimonP 00:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verbs like "to be"

The article gives examples replacing "is" with "looks" or "seems"; I recall an article I read (several years ago, most likely in The Atlantic Monthly or possibly Harper's or The New Yorker) that suggested that even these might go against the spirit of e-prime: According to the magazine article one should replace passive verbs with action verbs, or use more descriptive verbs, to encourage better writing skills. (And I actually tried to write that in e-prime; have I succeeded?) B7T 09:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization of article topic

The article proper is at "E-Prime", redirected from "E-prime"; should we not consider the uncapitalized version the correct one? B7T 09:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section; Chomsky

The following paragraph is rather biographical and does not tie in with the preceding text:

Chomsky, an anarchist, has also said that the greatest distorters of our perception are concentrations 
of power, such as states and corporations. He believes that power centers have the means to propagate 
their point of view and influence our perception of reality, much more than simply not using the verb "to be".

Perhaps I am not seeing the relevance, but Chomsky's political beliefs are irrelevant in this particular context, and the original remark pertaining to fallacious reasoning hardly begs for a response on class warfare. Please respond if you believe that the removal was unwarranted. Cioxx 08:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Saturday, October 07, 2006

I am not an expert in this area, just an independent thinker… I believe whatever we do, we should do it carefully. And certainly we shouldn’t accept any new theories or ideas just because they are “modern”. E-prime rises many questions; I’ve red so many Arguments pro and against the use of “to be”… there are so many examples around, but does anybody know how to “translate” (if only it’s possible) into E-prime the very simplest sentences, such as: I am (!) We are the Champions (!) He is a man (!)

Zetalion 09:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

PS To be or not to be (!)

[edit] Albert Ellis and Korzybski

Noted American psychologist Albert Ellis was apparently an admirer of Korzybski and intended to have one of his signature books, A New Guide to Rational Living, translated into E-Prime. Whether this was actually done, I don't know. If it was, is this noteworthy enough for me (or someone) to confirm and add to this article? --Wfaxon 12:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced tag

threw an {{unreferenced}} tag on this article this morning. there are zero sources or citations in the entire piece, so i think it's pretty much justified. if anyone is keen to go hunting some reference, please refer to WP:CITE and WP:V. thanks! -- frymaster 16:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted the tag that frymaster had added last January. I had added three published references, and text which discusses them. I believe these edits have remedied the deficiency he had asserted. If anyone disagrees, please let me know what more I might do. Weldc1jr 20:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the 2 refs in the first line of the History section? 152.130.15.14 17:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the articles from the Institute for General Semantics in the References section? 152.130.15.14 19:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I added three books in the history section, which I hope suffice to remedy the deficiency cited by frymaster above. I would also like to revise the intro to mention and exhibit other advantages of this language variant. but that section lacks the usual '(edit)' tag. As a newbie. I don;t know yet how to point to other sites that discuss the subject. I know of several uesful links.

Weldc1jr 17:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To edit the lead section, click the "edit this page" link at the top, which will let you edit the entire page. To add an external link, use something like this: [http://example.com example link]. Don't worry too much; if you get something wrong, somebody else will come and fix it for you pretty quickly. :) JulesH 21:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rules: You?

Someone just made an edit with the summary that "you" can not function as a subject in E'. I don't believe that this is the case. Anyone? samwaltz 12:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I don't see what that has to do with ridding a sentence of "to be" verbs. You could write, "You seem tired," and it's fine. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E'

Has anyone seen the term E' used to designate E-prime? It would seem to be a logical abbreviation, taking Prime (symbol) into account, but I have not yet stumbled accross it. Ah, well, not that it stopped me from throwing up a redirect from E'. samwaltz 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hamlet example

To be or not to be, That is the question. —Shakespeare's Hamlet== E-prime: To act and therefore to exist, or to abstain and so to disappear, That choice confronts me.

I think the translation lacks accuracy, not because of faults with E-prime, but because of the ambiguity in poetic English and the choice of the author to use an enigmatic style. I think a better (or at least more customary interpretation (in E prime) can read:

To refrain from acting by committing suicide, and thus continue to live, or commit suicide and die. I face that question.

The current translation seems to get the meaning of the first line backwards. DGG 23:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect Shakespeare would recoil in horror at that translation. :) I think the translation should mirror both the meaning and the rhythm of the original line (iambic pentameter with feminine ending) . Hence: To live, or not to live. That I must answer. Tangentstorm 19:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You say "not because of faults with E-prime..." I'd like to argue the advantages of intentional ambiguity ("siblng" and "parent" are both ambiguous in gender, as the speaker may considers gender irrelevant). There are certainly more stages of unambiguity which we could attain; however we traidtionally find the distinction irrelevant (We will call something a monkey without worrying whether it is a )Cebida or a Cercopithecida). As such, treat this case of ambiguity as a feature of convenience not in e-prime. samwaltz 21:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example of passive voice in opening "cheating"?

In the opening, an example of the passive voice appears. However, it seems that this example cheats somewhat by merely and clumsily chopping the "to be" out of the sentence. Ought we to remove this? It would not appear to be an entirely correct fact Gulanzon (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, inelegant and unnecessary to the lead of the article - I've removed it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The meaning of the word 'is'

Could we incorporate a chunk of Bill Clinton's impeachment procedings? I think the following quote demonstrates quite well one of the failings of the term "to be". wikiquote:Bill Clinton:

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.

samwaltz (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)