E-Prime: do you write, speak, think using this?

[RedPillNeo]

From the wiki:

E-Prime (short for English-Prime, sometimes denoted É or E′) denotes a version of the English language that excludes all forms of the verb to be, including all conjugations, contractions and archaic forms.

Some scholars advocate using E-Prime as a device to clarify thinking and strengthen writing.[1] For example, the sentence "the film was good" could not be expressed under the rules of E-Prime, and the speaker might instead say "I liked the film", "the film made me laugh", or "the film has value".[citation needed] The E-Prime versions communicate the writer's experience rather than judgment, making it harder for the writer or reader to confuse opinion with fact.

I first read about E Prime 20 years ago. I like it because it helps avoid attribution errors/bias in my thinking and writing. At various times I've made more or less effort to integrate it into my thought processes, only to slip back to regular English. Using it consistently in writing becomes tedious; speaking it consistently on the fly feels like an impossible goal.

If it became widely used, it would make fake news, advertising, and propaganda much less effective. Arguments between couples would probably never play out the same.

I came to ask if anyone here uses or has tried to use E-prime on a regular basis? Do you find benefits to its use? Have others around you noticed and/or picked up the habit? Do you think it helps keep potentially contentious discussions civil and focused?

 

[TofuFighter]

Like you, i also stumbled onto a reading about EPrime about 20 years ago and still use the ideas, as I understood them at the time, regularly for forming sentences and thoughts.

It's been a while since I re-read the literature. I've occasionally, over the years, tried to explain it to people that I know, but tend not to make too much of it given my apparent fading recollection of the details.

What i have found most useful about it is that the neutrality of the language seems to soften the response that I get from people who don't fully agree with what i'm saying. Actually, if it's used well (I'm not sure that 'well' has the right connotation - accurately?) enough, it can appear as if you have no opinion at all, and as such there's very little room for someone to disagree. Further, I have had the growing notion that, since i can never be certain of any given reality, having no opinion might end up being my default position on most things.

Thanks for posting this. I am prompted to refresh my memory.

 

[marplots]

How does E` deal with facts in the world?

The cat is on the mat.

Would it simply introduce an unwanted layer?

I see the cat on the mat.

I'm not sure introducing solipsism/subjectivity as a matter of course adds anything for the price. Maybe you could tell us more?

 

[rjh01]

How does E` deal with facts in the world?

The cat is on the mat.

Would it simply introduce an unwanted layer?

I see the cat on the mat.

I'm not sure introducing solipsism/subjectivity as a matter of course adds anything for the price. Maybe you could tell us more?

How does the person who you are talking to know how you know the cat is on the mat? For example someone may have told you the cat is on the mat. Saying you saw the cat on the mat means you are giving out first hand information.

 

[marplots]

How does the person who you are talking to know how you know the cat is on the mat? For example someone may have told you the cat is on the mat. Saying you saw the cat on the mat means you are giving out first hand information.

Unless it was a video of the cat.
I don't see an escape from the "man is the measure of all things" trap here. If I tell you about something I have observed, no matter what the mechanism, I am telling you something about me as well. Even for abstracts - "Math is hard."

I cannot speak, but be the speaker simultaneously. And this is a continuous background in communication, as ubiquitous as gravity.

So far E` sounds a bit like always adding the phrase: "...in my opinion." Duh.

What interests me is the possibility of avoiding false attribution when appealing to an off-stage, omniscient authority to do the work. But this seems like a rather specific use of "to be" instead of a general principle.

How does E` handle self referential? (I am hungry.)

 

[Dave Rogers]

For some reason this makes me think, "Stappers will get you. Or be you Slanduch?"

Dave

 

[RedPillNeo]

Even for abstracts - "Math is hard."

One problem with this which E' attempts to resolve: the lack of context or limitations in the above sentence. It allows or presupposes that hard exists as a characteristic of math itself, permeating the entirety of math regardless of outside observers. E' forces the speaker to specify exactly what they reference about the subject.

• I find math hard
• Higher math becomes hard
• I have known several poets who find math hard
• Of all subjects, my students struggle most to learn math

What interests me is the possibility of avoiding false attribution when appealing to an off-stage, omniscient authority to do the work.

Avoiding false attribution in all guises leads the motivations for using E'.

How does E` handle self referential? (I am hungry.)

• I feel hungry
• My stomach growls with hunger
• I feel faint from hunger
• I want to eat now
• Let's do something different now
• I need a pretext to end this encounter

E' basically cuts to the chase. Note the last two examples represent cases where a euphemism like "I am/feel hungry" probably represent the better choice!
__________________

One of the classic examples of restating something in E prime:

To be or not to be, that is the question

becomes

To live or to die, I ask myself this.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

How does E` deal with facts in the world?

The cat is on the mat.

Would it simply introduce an unwanted layer?

I see the cat on the mat.

I'm not sure introducing solipsism/subjectivity as a matter of course adds anything for the price. Maybe you could tell us more?

Yeah, it doesn't sound very practical to me.

Where sits the cat?
The cat sits not, it reclines.
(You pedantic bastard*, you know what I meant.) Where reclineth the cat?
I have observed the cat reclining on the mat.
(One could use something like "where does the cat find itself?" to prevent using a verb that does not describe the cat's current action).

*Does that have an implied "to be" there, because it's shorthand for "You are a pedantic bastard"? Is that allowed?

The advantage I see is that it forces you to be conscious of how you formulate sentences, and this conscious effort tends to make you more precise.
But that will end as soon as E-Prime catches on and people invent new fixed idioms to work around the missing verb.

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)

E' basically cuts to the chase. Note the last two examples represent cases where a euphemism like "I am/feel hungry" probably represent the better choice!

I think there's actually a good reason for language to be ambiguous, both when specificity overstates the case (too detailed) and when specificity understates it (many discrete types combined to make a subset of the general case). "Math is hard" - filling in for, "Algebra, trigonometry, calculus and linear operators are hard, while arithmetic isn't so bad, but on balance, I find math do be difficult."

Language, as it is used, has a context - what we are talking about, who is speaking and what I know about them... lots of things where ambiguity is resolved by knowing context instead of detailed declarative statements.
__________________

One of the classic examples of restating something in E prime:

To be or not to be, that is the question

becomes

To live or to die, I ask myself this.

It's hardly fair, allowing me to defend the Bard! The first use seems to be about a deeper, philosophical question we've all faced. It invites us to revisit the issue with Hamlet instead of merely observing Hamlet as a once-removed outsider.

 

[JeanTate]

Had never heard of it before. Doing some exploring:

One plus one is (equals) two.

The outside temp is 16 (the thermometer outside displays "16")

My name is Jean Tate (I am named /called Jean Tate) (the name on my birth certificate is Jean Tate) hmm

Which of those two girls is your daughter? (You are the parent of which of those two girls?)

 

[Myriad]

(You are the parent of which of those two girls?)

Nope, that still uses the copula. You might try, "Which of those two girls sprang from thy loins?"

 

[JeanTate]

Yeah, naming and identity/identification seem convoluted etc.

Where is the cat? Context: a picture with a lot of animals. Similarly, which one/animal is the cat or is called a cat?

Possessives seem mildly awkward too, e.g. My name is/appears on my birth certificate. It is my severed hand that's in the icebox; I hope you surgeons can successfully re-attach it.

Which of the following statements is true? Context: exercise in formal logic, or Boolean algebra, or ...

As it's (is has, not it is!) been round for decades, I'm sure E' has examined these uses and found unclumsy ways to avoid the verb to be, ways which also convey the intended meanings with no increase in ambiguity.

 

[Myriad]

I was unaware of this before, but I find that I do follow the recommendations in practice much of the time, for various reasons.

One is that many discourse situations call for presenting your observations rather than conclusions. This is often true in workplaces, unless you're paid to form conclusions. And it's usually true when interacting with medical professionals. It's more politic to tell your boss "the numbers show a 13% decrease in sales last month" instead of "sales are down 13% this month," because he likes to think that his expert assessment, rather than the mere numbers, determines how sales are going.

Whole books and courses cover the topic of "how to talk to medical care providers" and a lot of it boils down to what I just said: present observations; don't offer conclusions. Doctors get very adversarial about that. Even if you've had cyclokinaseptemia in your right leg seventeen times before and know the symptoms intimately, the moment you venture "I think it might be cyclokinaseptemia in my right leg" you've put yourself in the same category as the hypochondriac who's just read the word "cyclokinaseptemia" on the Internet for the first time. So instead you describe the symptoms (swelling, pain, inability to dance the first verse of the Hokey Pokey, green and yellow stripes on your shin), and add, "By the way, I have a history of cyclokinaseptemia in that leg."

Another reason is that the advice recapitulates, on the smallest scale, the advice so often given to writers: "Show, don't tell." Rewording a simple assertive fact to avoid the copula can lead to more convincing wording. Once you decide "she is beautiful" doesn't explain enough, you might end up with:

She walks in beauty, like the night
Of cloudless climes and starry skies;
And all that's best of dark and bright
Meet in her aspect and her eyes...

If you take the cliché opening sentence for a novel, "It was a dark and stormy night," and rewrite it without the copula, right away you'll get something a little better, perhaps "The dark stormy night seemed endless." Since something that seems has to seem to someone, you're already on your way to a point of view, even though the claimed facts (darkness, storms) haven't changed. The problem with "It was a dark and stormy night" (apart from its history as a noted cliché) isn't that it omnisciently declares facts (you're an author; that's your job), but that it only does that, wasting an opportunity.

All that said, I don't regard the e-prime strictures as a necessity, any more than the idea that all use of the passive voice must be avoided, or that a preposition is never acceptable to end a sentence with. To show that, I've gone back and highlighted in red all the cases I found in this post, other than deliberate examples, where I (or in one instance, even Byron) used a form of the copula.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm not sure I can see the utility of this, especially in casual conversation, but I do often try to clearly delineate between when I'm stating something as a fact ("the film was directed by Richard Ayoade") and as an opinion ("I like Richard Ayoade's films"). And, while I obviously don't shy away from any form of "to be" I'm much more likely to say the sentence "I thought the film was good" or "the film was good, I thought" or even just "I enjoyed the film" than I am to simply say "the film was good". That said, I will tend to go the other way when I'm intending to be hyperbolic - "The Happening is an awesome film, it's one of the funniest films I've ever seen".

I'm not sure there really would be anything to gain from excluding "to be" from my speech.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If you take the cliché opening sentence for a novel, "It was a dark and stormy night," and rewrite it without the copula, right away you'll get something a little better, perhaps "The dark stormy night seemed endless."

I think the issue is connotation. Like changing "to be or not to be" to "to live or die" you're subtly altering the meaning.

In your example you're adding information. What if the night doesn't seem endless? What if there's no-one around for it to seem anything to?

Also, besides the fact that I can't see why the use of "was" would be a problem in that sentence, I think that substitution throws up its own problems, minor though they may be. If the dark, stormy night seemed endless, then was there a non-dark, non-stormy night that didn't? Is there a dark, tranquil night that seemed brief?

I think it's actually less precise, in some ways. Which, I mean, fine because it's fiction and favouring being evocative over precision is perfectly valid, but I don't see how one is inherently superior to the other. Instead it seems like a trade-off that should be entirely down to the preferences of the author.

 

[JeanTate]

There are certainly uses of language where ambiguity is not only intended, but crucial, in a lot of fiction, even TV court room dramas (a deliberately ambiguous question elicits a revealing answer, for example).

And there are ways to indicate opinion, while still using "is" ("Mills' theory is just another piece of crackpot physics, IM(NS)HO"; this coming at the conclusion of 20+ pages of fully referenced, detailed analysis. Or not.)

Myriad's "talking to doctors" is a good example of where "report what you see/feel" is very good practice ... but surely "I have a big red rash in my groin" is arguably little better than "there is a big red rash in my groin"? Your doctor is going to want to see it, whichever statement you made, right?

When does present fact, described with "is" become past fact, described without it? "It's raining" vs "It rained yesterday", say.

Diving into identity etc a bit more: "Jean sprang from John and Jeannie's loins", "John is Jean's father, and Jeannie is her mother", "Jean's birth certificate lists John as the father and Jeannie as the mother", ... they're not the same, though in some contexts they could be.

Curious fact (hidden is? ) in some languages, "is" in English is often absorbed into the verb; e.g. In Mandarin Chinese, "ni e bu e?" (You hungry not hungry"), "xia yu le" (it's raining), "mao zai di shang" (cat on floor/ground).

 

[Myriad]

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

Hmm, how do we fix this?

"As times go, the time was simultaneously and oppositely superlative."

No, that didn't help.

"The time exceeded all others, and all others exceeded it, goodness-wise."



"For some the time seemed the best, for others the worst. Or perhaps some aspects of it seemed best and others the worst, even to the same individuals."



"You want to talk about the time? Let me tell ya. Put it against all the good times, and it wins for best. But put it against all the bad times, and it gets the prize for worst. Go figure."



"Loved the time, hated the time."



"The time bested, the time worsted."



"Best? Worst? I'm the time with the gun."

There we go.

 

[hecd2]

[FONT=&quot]Originally thought I'd say I get it but yada yada yada...

...But I don't get it at all. English is one of the most expressive languages with the biggest vocabulary and a wonderful literature that stretches back hundreds of years and crosses continents. Why would you want to hamstring it by excluding one of its most powerful modes of expression? Why would you abandon the language of Chaucer, the King James bible, Donne, Shakespeare, Dickens, Poe, Hemingway, Yeats and Churchill for an ersatz language invented by a non-native speaker. Just look at the list of completed works in E', unknown science fiction, self help books and woo psychology, and set that against the great canon of English literature. It's no contest.

When deciding whether the language can be made more subtle and precise and expressive by this artificial device, don't look to dry academic arguments or to enthusiasts. Look to the masters of the language, and consider whether you could "strengthen the writing" using this device (or at all):

This world nys but a thurghfare ful of wo,
And we been pilgrymes, passynge to and fro;
Deeth is an ende of every worldly soore.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:

O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And then is heard no more. It is a tale[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Signifying nothing.

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us...

It was a bright cold day in April and the clocks were striking 13

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, “This was their finest hour.”

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]It matters not how strait the gate, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] How charged with punishments the scroll, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am the master of my fate, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] I am the captain of my soul.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.

It is an ancient mariner
And he stoppeth one of three...[/FONT]

Death, be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so;

We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal

I suppose I've belaboured the point enough.

 

[RedPillNeo]

I should have clarified that my Hamlet quote, while an example of conformity to E' rules, shows that in some contexts it diminishes the impact of the writing.

The MAIN utility of E' emerges where ambiguity definitely becomes a negative, such as when defining things, describing a situation, and especially during arguments.

Attempting to use it rigidly in casual or colloquial speech or writing becomes difficult and tedious, and in my experience doesn't help anything except perhaps your own inner E' game while working to internalize it.

When writing about politics, I find it helps to reduce ad hom and other nonobjective responses, though no magic bullet exists to prevent these entirely.

 

[The Norseman]

[FONT=&quot]Originally thought I'd say I get it but yada yada yada...

...But I don't get it at all.

It seems so.

I think the whole point is to get people to think about what they write and how it's written. The great authors are Great not because they follow the rules or because they break the rules; they have found ways to speak to us, emotionally. That's an entirely different class than how I understand E-Prime to be in.