If we want to experience the world differently, we need to start with our language. See if you can train yourself in e prime.

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), September 09, 1999

Answers

Hint: 'e prime' is just English EXCEPT you cannot use the verb 'be' or any of its inflected forms (is, are, was, etc.). Hence the above sentence is NOT in e prime!

That man is drunk.

That man looks drunk.

That dinner was great!

I really enjoyed that dinner!

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), September 09, 1999.

Great, "newspeak" has begun.

-- (bigbrother@watching.you), September 09, 1999.

Some months ago on this forum several of us discussed a possible need for alterations in the language we use to understand/describe the world/universe. The creator of e-prime, his name escapes me wrote prolifically in the field of General Semantics,....

I don't see a connection to Orwellian-type newspeak. I use e-prime as an exercise for my brain when I want to write with more clarity. Try writing something using other words for any time you want to use the verb "to be",...any form.

--she who appears to stand on a hill wearing a sheet.

That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is. -from "Flowers For Algernon", Ken Keysee (I think)

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 09, 1999.

Here's some interesting reading from Alfred Korzybski, the founder of the field of General Semantics.

The Role of Language in the Perceptual Process

As I remember now, Korzbyski did not create e prime. I have the reference bookmarked. More when I find it. Still, I find readings in general semantics endlessly fascinating.

--upon her appear pieces of cloth she calls sheets.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 09, 1999.

Here, an essay by Robert Anton Wilson with great stuff on E Prime.

Toward Understanding E Prime

This essay linked to No Sacred Cows web site. I found many interesting articles and thought there. Click to the No Sacred Cows main page to check it out.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 09, 1999.

This goes to the heart of the question of what is the definition of the word 'is'.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), September 09, 1999.

The danger of eliminating the existenial act and de-emphasizing the abstractions of uniqueness, sameness, and difference causes me great concern. Within the labryinth of e-prime lurks terrifying dangers; I sense that beyond the absence of the existential, judgement, logic, and knowledge breaks down into a phantom and a dream, a bubble in a stream, or a flash of lightning in a summer cloud. Objectivity and thingness, for example, become problematics, confusions, and improprieties.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 09, 1999.

What I like about e prime as an exercise is that it forces me to be accurate without my preset notions of "is-ness". The language tools we use as human beings describe-only in my opinion,...I am able to imagine that actuality may lie outside of my language's ability to know. In Robert Anton Wilson's essay one example stands out, one that confuddles physicists,....

Light is a wave. Light is a particle. In the english language, replete with the verb "to be",...those statements together are noise. If instead one states that at times Light "appears" as a wave, and at other times it "appears" as particle, there is no non sequitor.

I think we must risk eliminating self from time to time,...especially in this age of rampant self-absorbtion and pathological-level narcissism....I think I will not disappear if I eliminate "to be" from much of my language. AND,...in the end,...I can DEFINITELY use the word "I",...make I-statements, and not cloud conversation with anything other than observance and my thoughts....anything else to me seems close to dishonest.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 09, 1999.

Additionally, I have found it important in my growth to learn to contend with the "ambiguity" of things...and e prime seems to me to encourage leaps into ambiguity. For me there are few absolutes. I realize that in this thinking I walk solo or close to it. In my 48th year on the planet, that is enough for me.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 09, 1999.

Donna,

While anything else may seem to be dishonest, I would rather run the risk of being misunderstood than that knowledge become mere opinions. Without any certainties, human action can no longer be evaluated and human action even becomes problematic (no end would compel us). That doesn't mean, however, that I'm against questioning what passes for truth and knowledge.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 09, 1999.

eprime is just the beginning. How long before they decide to eliminate other words in order to help you "experience the world differently?" Soon you'll be experiencing only what they want you to experience, and you'll happily buy into it like the good little sheep that you are. If you don't see the Orwellian connection, then you should go back and read "1984" again.

-- (bigbrother@watching.you), September 09, 1999.

Donna: thanks for extra links!

Stan: I think it is not an attempt to deny certainty, but rather the opposite: to locate and assert certainty where it truly exists. For example, my statement "that man appears drunk" is more certain when I see a guy on the stree than my statement "that man is drunk".

Big Brother: I sympathize! 1984 is my favorite book. But the semantics of Newspeak, while superficially similar to eprime in the basic mechanism of elminating words, seems to me in practice to pull in the opposite direction of the crude "certainties" offered by the Inner Party: "War IS Peace", "Ignorance IS Strength", "Freedom IS Slavery".

-- count vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), September 09, 1999.

Am I going to have to admit that Klinton was right in questioning what "is" is?

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 09, 1999.

I'm sure "newspeak" would have started out with such "innocent" changes as we see with e-prime before they took it to the next level with "War IS Peace," and "Freedom IS Slavery." It always starts small so that in can achieve acceptance and gain a foothold among the common people. Then, more gradual changes are made until people speak and think exactly as they are told. Removing the verb "be" is a very dangerous start as it has already eliminated the word to describe our very existence. "I think therefore I am." is no longer allowed. What will the punishment be for proclaiming our own existence? Why are we no longer allowed to ascertain "what is?" but rather just "what appears?" How long before this is applied to mathematics? Are we not allowed to say "1 + 1 IS 2?" Will they eliminate the equal sign as part of their "improvement" to our language? This is clearly Orwellian, just not in the exact same way.

-- (bigbrother@watching.you), September 09, 1999.

Quote of Note from the Robert Anton Wilson link, above:

I have found repeatedly that when baffled by a problem in science, in "philosophy," or in daily life, I gain immediate insight by writing down what I know about the enigma in strict E-Prime. Often, solutions appear immediately-just as happens when you throw out the "wrong" software and put the "right" software into your PC. In other cases, I at least get an insight into why the problem remains intractable and where and how future science might go about finding an answer. (This has contributed greatly to my ever-escalating agnosticism about the political, ideological, and religious issues that still generate the most passion on this primitive planet.)

When a proposition resists all efforts to recast it in a form consistent with what we now call E-Prime, many consider it "meaningless." Korzybski, Wittgenstein, the Logical Positivists, and (in his own way) Niels Bohr promoted this view. I happen to agree with that verdict (which condemns 99 percent of theology and 99.999999 percent of metaphysics to the category of Noise rather than Meaning)--but we must save that subject for another article. For now, it suffices to note that those who fervently believe such Aristotelian propositions as "A piece of bread, blessed by a priest, is a person (who died two thousand years ago)," "The flag is a living being," or "The fetus is a human being" do not, in general, appear to make sense by normal twentieth-century scientific standards. It will be interesting to see where different people come down on this, especially all the bible-thumpers who are (seem to be) so sure of their dogmas, incuding the existence of "god", and all the pussy/wusses (those who seem to be) who are so sure government is the solution to all problems, despite overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 09, 1999.

I had never heard of this referred to as "e-prime." In 9th grade Honor's English class we were required to compose all essays without the use of any "be" verb. Use of one "be" verb meant immediate failure.

This was circa 1984... kinda neat on timing, I'd say.

-- Jay (havocuz@mindspring.com), September 09, 1999.

1 + 1 "equals" 2

I think, therefore I exist

This seems to be an attempt to reduce the dependency on "allness" terms, which can lock one into either-or thinking.

Frankly, although I enjoy the subtleties of the English language, there are times when it seems to confuse rather than clarify.

At the least, eliminating the infinitives such as "is", "am", "are" should have the effect of creating more thinking about the thought.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), September 09, 1999.

This seems to be an attempt to reduce the dependency on "allness" terms, which can lock one into either-or thinking.

It's an attempt to increase our dependency on using only the words that are "allowed." This is only the beginning. More words will be added once this "great idea" is accepted.

At the least, eliminating the infinitives such as "is", "am", "are" should have the effect of creating more thinking about the thought.

Wrong, it will create the thinking that is desired by the people who want to rape our language and control our lives. It's sad to see so many people who are so willing to give up control of their thoughts and rationalize it away like the best of the Pollys. Yes, let the establishment control our language and our minds, they know what's best for us.

-- (bigbrother@watching.you), September 09, 1999.

The present time,...the time of political disinformation and spin-doctoring appears to me the time of Newspeak. I don't perceive it as related to the function of language usage like e prime. What I describe will not of a certainty "be" what you perceive.

Golly, I love good discusssions on linguistics and semantics...in my mind, the stuff of human experience and existence greater than any commentary on 'men's wars'.

I recommend not fearing things such as e prime,... have peace big brother. I suppose the politicos within all the evil empires could misuse such a tool, my reason for enthusiam is: clarity.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 09, 1999.

The present time,...the time of political disinformation and spin- doctoring appears to me the time of Newspeak.

No doubt. People continue to abuse terminology and twist words to fit their own motive. But at least they are allowed to use the words they choose. And we are allowed to argue their meanings.

I don't perceive it as related to the function of language usage like e prime.

The usage seeks to control language and thought by eliminating one of the key concepts that describe our very existence. This is newspeak at its most sinister.

Golly, I love good discusssions on linguistics and semantics.

As do I. Unfortunately, these discussions will no longer be allowed when they decide to remove more words from the vocabulary.

I recommend not fearing things such as e prime,

Pollys recommend not fearing Y2K.

have peace big brother.

Yes, go back to my peaceful slumber, and let the establishment take control of my language and my thoughts.

I suppose the politicos within all the evil empires could misuse such a tool,

The tool itself is evil, not merely the misuse of it. Its very design controls your thoughts.

my reason for enthusiam is: clarity.

Clarity at the cost of freedom. That's quite a price to pay.

-- (bigbrother@watching.you), September 09, 1999.

Humm. Semantics stumbles, civilization crumbles?

To exist, or not to exist... questions, anyone?

Rather than viewing life in terms of either or ... AND provides more realistic inclusiveness. In most contexts.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 09, 1999.

Hey...peace, for goodness' sake, big brother. I neither advocate legislation for E Prime, nor fear Y2K.

I wish to remain "free" to use whatever syntax/language I want.

Lovely one, language per se, that you acquired in infancy frames your thinking,...that is the whole point of this thread. Read again if you have a mind to,.....

You are perfectly free to speak and write as you please. No skin off my nose.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 09, 1999.

Explain to me how tools can be evil. Seems like the same argument the anti-gun people use to limit "our" freedom to own.

I ask to demonstrate that your statement 'is' non sequitor,...noise....tools do nothing unless used....use can perhaps be for malicious intention or not.

Elucidate, please.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 09, 1999.

"...if we regard our theories as "direct descriptions of the world as it is", we will inevitably treat these differences and distinctions as divisions, implying separate existence of the various elementary terms appearing in the theory. We will thus be led to the illusion that the world is actually constituted of separate fragments, and...this will cause us to act in such a way that we do in fact produce the very fragmentation implied in our attitude to the theory." (David Bohm, in Wholeness and the Implicate Order.)

"Reification" is the apprehension of man's ideas as if they were something other than his own ideas, such as physical objects, facts of nature, universal laws, or manifestations of divine will. Reification implies that man is capable of forgetting his own authorship of the human world." p. 89, The Social Construction of Reality, Berger & Luckmann, 1966 [Anchor p/b ed. 1967]

Molly Ivins sums it up in four words: "Certitude is the enemy."

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), September 10, 1999.

Thanks Count!

Interesting stuff, anything that can help me to clarify my thinking appears to be worth checking out. ;)

Donna,

I shoulda figured you would be into this. ;)

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 10, 1999.

Explain to me how tools can be evil. Seems like the same argument the anti-gun people use to limit "our" freedom to own.

Nice spin. Not unexpected for someone who supports "newspeak." Lump me in with the anti-gun people and you win instant support. You make me sick.

The tool is "evil" because the inherent nature of the "tool" is to eliminate our language and restrict our thought. No matter how you choose to use it, it will still do this.

I don't expect you to understand. You will simply do what you are told like a good little sheeple. I'm sure you're more comfortable that way.

-- (bigbrother@watching.you), September 10, 1999.

I'm sorry you are still taking this tack....big brother, you are way off the mark. No one here is attempting to limit your speech....get out of yourself for 2 seconds. I've been as patient as a mom can be, but really,...you speak with a paranoia that know little bounds....We are discussing here a way to describe, a way to think, that is purely optional. For cryin' out loud......is it time for your meds? I was direct and assertive and you are still harping on the same old rant...

Want my credentials? I'm a small-"a" anarchist, a supporter of people's right to arm themselves...I hate governments of all types and would only loosely define myself as a "citizen"...and YOU are being an obnoxious bore. Get over yourself.

Back to linguistics and semantics...yes Uncle Deedah,...you WOULD find me here.

I don't think it never "not" in order to attempt to hone language for more clarity,...I write, hope to publish, do editing work for other writers,...english is wonderful, and unfortunately most people have been taught that the more adjectives and adverbs they use, the smarter they'll sound...WRONG. Spare, bone-bare prose, and little use of passive voice is critical for good writing, and clear communication....

--she stand upon the hill in her sheet and says: 'Nuff!

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 11, 1999.

Big Brother, if somebody came by riding a unicycle and said "hey, riding a unicycle is awkward and difficult, but it might be fun, give you a new perspective, and teach you something about yourself!" would you say "this is a compulsory goverment plot to rid ALL cycles of one of their wheels and get the whole population riding around like trained circus bears!"

Or, would you say "no thanks, looks too dangerous for me, and I might make a fool of myself when I fall the first 1000 times..."

or maybe get on and try it out...

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), September 11, 1999.

"This goes to the heart of the question of what is the definition of the word 'is'. "

Lets see if I get this right:

This goes to the heart of the question of what the word "is" means.

I've read the essay on the link you gave Count V., very interesting. English is (um...was learned as?) my second language, and during the 2 english comp courses I had in college not much was discussed in depth, certainly not E-prime.

I wouldn't go as far as learning to write and speak exclusively in E-prime, but certainly I can see the benefits when applied in certain situations, like on this forum for example. If doomers and pollies agreed to debate exclusively in E-prime, oh my!, it might turn into a civilized and rational forum! ;-)

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), September 11, 1999.

I'm sorry you are still taking this tack....big brother,

I'm sure you are.

you are way off the mark. No one here is attempting to limit your speech....

Except for those who feel that we need a different language which will serve to limit our expression and our thought.

I've been as patient as a mom can be,

Not really.

but really,..you speak with a paranoia that know little bounds.

And you speak with a stupidity that knows little bounds.

We are discussing here a way to describe, a way to think, that is purely optional.

Until it is decided that we need to all speak this language.

For cryin' out loud......is it time for your meds?

This, of course, being the way you would "solve" the problem, eh? That would keep the complainers quiet, wouldn't it?

I was direct and assertive and you are still harping on the same old rant...

You asked a question laced with a ridiculous spin and I answered the question and responded to the spin. If you didn't want an answer (what you apparently call "harping,") then you shouldn't have asked the question.

Want my credentials?

No, I don't give a rats ass about your credentials. Your own words speak volumes about you.

I'm a small-"a" anarchist, a supporter of people's right to arm themselves...I hate governments of all types and would only loosely define myself as a "citizen"...

And yet you have no problems with restrictions placed upon language and thought. Just as long as you can keep your guns??

and YOU are being an obnoxious bore.

Yes, one who speaks out against restriction of speech and thought is now an "obnoxious bore." What next? Will you decide my thoughts are dangerous as well? Maybe lock me up or put me on some "meds?"

Get over yourself.

You first.

-- (bigbrother@watching.you), September 11, 1999.

Big Brother, if somebody came by riding a unicycle and said "hey, riding a unicycle is awkward and difficult, but it might be fun, give you a new perspective, and teach you something about yourself!" would you say "this is a compulsory goverment plot to rid ALL cycles of one of their wheels and get the whole population riding around like trained circus bears!"

No.

Now please explain how watching someone riding a unicycle has anything at all to do with the suggestion that we need to be using a language that restricts our thought.

-- (bigbrother@watching.you), September 11, 1999.

Big Brother, you are correct. I apologize. I should NOT have used the word "need" in the original post. It "was" a mistake. We certainly don't "need" e-prime, we just need guns, gold, and grain. If we remove the word "need" however (language restriction?), the analogy with unicyle riding stands: eprime is nothing but an invitation to try something different. To paraphrase an old Western song: those who don't like it - can leave it alone.

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), September 11, 1999.

Big Brother, you are correct. I apologize. I should NOT have used the word "need" in the original post. It "was" a mistake.

Apology accepted.

This is an excellent illustration of how much clarity can be gained by simply using our existing language more carefully rather than creating a new one by removing words and concepts.

-- (bigbrother@watching.you), September 11, 1999.

Seems that you totally misunderstood me,...I do not need nor require any mandated change in the English language for other people.

You can be right if you want, and make me wrong, big brother. Not a problem.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 11, 1999.

This looks to me like a very interesting thread, which BigBro contributed to and kept going in an interesting way. I've no idea how long I can talk without using some form of the existence verb, however I do find it an enjoyable challenge and much easier than doing without the 'to have' verb, especially given the presence of that verb in our past tenses.

Should we add to the effect of the party be making it an e-prime thread, FRLians?

-- T the C (Tricia_Canuck@hotmail.com), September 12, 1999.

E Prime: I favor anyone's attempts to speak/write assertively and accurately. It appears that I need to make greater effort to avoid statements that sound like commandments. I have experimented in all my writing and speaking with the elimination of the passive voice. No "we"s, "our"s, and "us"s. I-statements dominate.

The preceeding paragraph brought to you by the repressive and restrictive language called: E Prime.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 12, 1999.

I see that there seems to be a misunderstanding on this thread. I believe I understand Count Vronsky's intent of pointing out the benefits of E-prime, but at the same time I can see that Big Brother has a good point. I alos think Donna has hit on something important. I like I satements. I can be assertive with I statements. I will use E-prime and I statement together from now on.

I take part in the FRL Membership! I represent SOMEBODY! Oh yess!

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), September 12, 1999.

"I see that there seems to be a misunderstanding on this thread."

Oops! I slipped with a "to be"...too much wine at the FRL's party. I should have said "I perceive a misunderstanding on this thread".

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), September 12, 1999.

Darn! Another slip....I meant "I can act assertive!"

There.

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), September 12, 1999.

You could just blame your lapse on the hour, Chris. The time here approaches mid-night, and I believe you live in a time zone two hours before, right?

Jay, I somehow missed seeing your post earlier. My mind boggles at a year of English essays without the existence verb. How well did you do?

-- T the C (tricia_canuck@hotmail.com), September 12, 1999.