Speaking in E-Prime

[civplayah]

Hmm, this looks interesting. I never heard of it, though.

 

[Dachs]

I've never heard of "E-prime" but I've been taught repeatedly that avoiding passive tense (i.e. depending upon "to be") leads to clearer communication.

In English, avoiding the passive voice usually makes for clearer writing.

 

[kulade]

Obviously as previously stated, eliminating be-forms doesn't make English less dogmatic, less combative, or more intelligent; spoken English's stupidity stems from the stupidity of those speaking it. Even if removing be-forms flushes away many of the most absent minded of constructions, speaker will just find new ways to exert their stupidity. <Insert additional disdainfull remark about Sapir-Whorf hypothesis here>

I have read of E-Prime before and can say that I thought it as a clever way to speak or write less repetitively, although obviously not by nature more "intelligently."

 

[Janig]

Except that humans possess rational abilities that can prevent conflict for the betterment of all involved.

I disagree with that at least in this case. kill fire created this topic and its for everyones benefit that I respond. I can only assume kill fire is stupid or a hypocrite, for if kill fire truly believed in E Prime he would practice it in the first post. By calling kill fire stupid im not insulting him, im giving him the benefit of the doubt otherwise he'd simply be a hypocrite which is totally negative. This way I can educate him.

kill fire Try is an order word. Yes the second paragraph was clearly only your opinion but the conclusion and point of the topic says "try to present things in E-Prime for one day and note the differences in conversation". I skipped to that conclusion and asked why, then I reread and found your passive aggressive reasoning to be the only substance.

"do this because I said so." If I did say that somehow, I didn't intend to. I was trying to say just the opposite actually, that it was actually just my personal opinion.

youve got to take responsibility for what you do mate otherwise this isnt a conversation

 

[kill fire]

I was trying to present the final sentence a suggestion, not a demand, or in other words "try this if you want to" not "do what I say because I say so." As well, I don't think I used the verb "to be" anywhere in that sentence, or that entire post actually, other than ironically to prove a point. I think you might be misinterpreting what I'm trying to say.

 

[Bill3000]

In English, avoiding the passive voice usually makes for clearer writing.

I'm disappointed in you, Dachs. This is incorrect, and evidence that the book Elements of Style ought to be banned, and "English" professors executed. The passive voice is useful when identifying the patient of a verb is more important than the actor, and when the actor is unknown, unimportant, or not worth mentioning. That is, after all, the point of the using the passive voice in nominative-accusative languages - switching the topic of the sentence to that of the patient/theme instead of the actor. When the actor is more important, you wouldn't use the passive. At the least, avoiding the passive when it is awkward is a trivial and unnecessary warning to those who are native speakers are English. How it has been proscribed, to avoid it in general - it is a overgeneralizing and false claim. All good writers use the passive voice.

In addition, GoodGame, you have been taught miserably - the passive voice is a grammatical voice, not a grammatical tense. The grammatical voice of a verb describes the relationship between the action/state that the verb expresses and the participants identified by its arguments. The grammatical tense of a verb indicates when the situation takes place. (It is also distinct from grammatical aspect.) Your teachers ought to be fired, and certainly shouldn't be proscribing grammar if they don't know crap about it.

 

[Rashiminos]

Eliminating one of the most frequent verbs in most languages, madness?

 

[illram]

I'm still not exactly sure what E-Prime is, but your LOTR conversation example sounds similar to what I have heard, secondhand, in an assertiveness training my wife had to attend. (For work.) She said the course was about using "I" statements. E.g. instead of saying "that's annoying" say "I feel like I can't concentrate when you do that." Or something.

Also this may not be totally relevant but an english professor I had in college ("Practical Criticism") made us never use the word "is" and docked us points every time we wrote a sentence using subject/verb/object structure.

He also had the best and worst paper every week photocopied--name not removed--and handed out to the class for everyone to pick apart... he was ruthless.

re: passive voice, in legal writing it was hammered into our heads to avoid using the passive voice. I was taught that in general in college too. Sadly I'm not entirely sure those lessons worked for me.

 

[civ_king]

For those of you who have never heard of E-Prime, or don't know much about it, it's essentially a form of the English language that does not use the verb "to be." Wikipedia has an article on it here if you want to learn more about it.

I think it can greatly reduce conflict and help with understanding other peoples arguments.

For example, I remember two having a conversation about the first Lord of the Rings movie a while ago. One of them said "Lord of the Rings was the greatest movie ever." The other responded "Nuh-uh Lord of the Rings sucked." It resulted in a long argument and both walked away angry with each other. I think that if they had instead said "I enjoyed the first Lord of the Rings movie" and "I didn't care for it myself" the whole conflict could have been avoided, as it stops being an argument for which statement is true, and becomes instead a simple statement of opinions.

I think that using E-Prime, or at least using the verb "to be" less , would benefit people in off-topic. I often see people simply asserting that their ideas are the truth. For example, I commonly observe people saying "so and so is morally acceptable." Then, someone with an opposing view will say "No, so and so is not morally acceptable." I think this causes conflict, because first of all, it seems to imply that one of them knows for a fact that their argument is true, and the other as well knows for a fact that their argument is true, when neither person can empirically prove their point. If they could, I would think that neither person would need to argue.

Secondly, I think that it makes it difficult for people to see the other person's point of view. After all, if your argument is true, then that means the other person either cannot understand the truth (they are stupid), cannot accept the truth (they are crazy), or they know the truth but spread lies (they are evil). I think that this makes it very difficult to understand other people's ideas, because if you present your arguments as truth, then to me at least it logically follows that the other person must be wrong or lying. I think that if we instead present our ideas as opinions, it will be much easier to think of them as opinions.

I think that if we speak in E-Prime, conversations might become an exchange of ideas and opinions instead being a battle over which person is "right" and which person is "wrong." I also think our discussions will be more productive and more civil if we just say "I disagree with so and so" or "I agree with so and so" instead of "so and so is right" or "so and so is wrong."

Well, I suppose I've rambled on long enough, just as an experiment, try to present things in E-Prime for one day and note the differences in conversation.

Query: Why do you feel that Off-Topic deserves annihilation?

 

[JollyRoger]

re: passive voice, in legal writing it was hammered into our heads to avoid using the passive voice. I was taught that in general in college too. Sadly I'm not entirely sure those lessons worked for me.

There is certainly a place for the passive voice in legal writing, mainly when your are dealing with items not all that favorable to your client, but needing to be acknowledged for credibility purposes.

 

[Elrohir]

For those of you who have never heard of E-Prime, or don't know much about it, it's essentially a form of the English language that does not use the verb "to be." Wikipedia has an article on it here if you want to learn more about it.

I think it can greatly reduce conflict and help with understanding other peoples arguments.

For example, I remember two having a conversation about the first Lord of the Rings movie a while ago. One of them said "Lord of the Rings was the greatest movie ever." The other responded "Nuh-uh Lord of the Rings sucked." It resulted in a long argument and both walked away angry with each other. I think that if they had instead said "I enjoyed the first Lord of the Rings movie" and "I didn't care for it myself" the whole conflict could have been avoided, as it stops being an argument for which statement is true, and becomes instead a simple statement of opinions.

I think that using E-Prime, or at least using the verb "to be" less , would benefit people in off-topic. I often see people simply asserting that their ideas are the truth. For example, I commonly observe people saying "so and so is morally acceptable." Then, someone with an opposing view will say "No, so and so is not morally acceptable." I think this causes conflict, because first of all, it seems to imply that one of them knows for a fact that their argument is true, and the other as well knows for a fact that their argument is true, when neither person can empirically prove their point. If they could, I would think that neither person would need to argue.

Secondly, I think that it makes it difficult for people to see the other person's point of view. After all, if your argument is true, then that means the other person either cannot understand the truth (they are stupid), cannot accept the truth (they are crazy), or they know the truth but spread lies (they are evil). I think that this makes it very difficult to understand other people's ideas, because if you present your arguments as truth, then to me at least it logically follows that the other person must be wrong or lying. I think that if we instead present our ideas as opinions, it will be much easier to think of them as opinions.

I think that if we speak in E-Prime, conversations might become an exchange of ideas and opinions instead being a battle over which person is "right" and which person is "wrong." I also think our discussions will be more productive and more civil if we just say "I disagree with so and so" or "I agree with so and so" instead of "so and so is right" or "so and so is wrong."

Well, I suppose I've rambled on long enough, just as an experiment, try to present things in E-Prime for one day and note the differences in conversation.

That is dumb.

Removing objectivity from language is a step backwards -- language isn't just meant for the communication of subjective truths, but objective ones as well. It's not "I think the earth revolves around the sun," but rather "The earth revolves (IE, is revolving) around the sun." Running away from objective statements until everything is wishy-washy and only has relevance as far as the individual speaking is concerned is lame. And trying to escape the issue by not making factual statements, but rather statements of opinion, is both cowardly and dumb. How do you propose to do business, or teach schools, or do anything of real value? "I think that renting the hotel room for the night costs $50, but I am just giving my opinion," "I think, children, that the American Revolution preceded the French, but I cannot say that it was so, because I cannot use the word was," etc. There may be some value in people being less dogmatic in certain conversations, but trying to get rid of the verb "to be" is really, really silly.

(This is a joke, right?)

This doesn't make you sound smarter or more conciliatory -- it makes you sound more verbose and weak, and quite frankly, weird.

Secondly, I think that it makes it difficult for people to see the other person's point of view. After all, if your argument is true, then that means the other person either cannot understand the truth (they are stupid), cannot accept the truth (they are crazy), or they know the truth but spread lies (they are evil).

Or they just don't know the truth yet, and they can learn if they listen? (Like with you, right now?) Or maybe they really are stupid, crazy, or lying. I'm not going to presume to know what they (Or you) are really truly like. But that has nothing to do with the factual accuracy of your statements about the world.

I think that this makes it very difficult to understand other people's ideas, because if you present your arguments as truth, then to me at least it logically follows that the other person must be wrong or lying. I think that if we instead present our ideas as opinions, it will be much easier to think of them as opinions.

But I'm (I am) not just giving my opinion, sometimes I'm giving indisputable facts. The sun is hot. (You are posting on CFC, I am correcting your lame ideas, etc. )

 

[kill fire]

That is dumb
Removing objectivity from language is a step backwards -- language isn't just meant for the communication of subjective truths, but objective ones as well. It's not "I think the earth revolves around the sun," but rather "The earth revolves (IE, is revolving) around the sun." Running away from objective statements until everything is wishy-washy and only has relevance as far as the individual speaking is concerned is lame. And trying to escape the issue by not making factual statements, but rather statements of opinion, is both cowardly and dumb. How do you propose to do business, or teach schools, or do anything of real value? "I think that renting the hotel room for the night costs $50, but I am just giving my opinion," "I think, children, that the American Revolution preceded the French, but I cannot say that it was so, because I cannot use the word was," etc. There may be some value in people being less dogmatic in certain conversations, but trying to get rid of the verb "to be" is really, really silly. (This is a joke, right?)

This doesn't make you sound smarter or more conciliatory -- it makes you sound more verbose and weak, and quite frankly, weird.


Or they just don't know the truth yet, and they can learn if they listen? (Like with you, right now?) Or maybe they really are stupid, crazy, or lying. I'm not going to presume to know what they (Or you) are really truly like. But that has nothing to do with the factual accuracy of your statements about the world.


But I'm (I am) not just giving my opinion, sometimes I'm giving indisputable facts. The sun is hot. (You are posting on CFC, I am correcting your lame ideas, etc. )

Ironically, this type of argument seems like one of the ones I was speaking against in the OP. Much of that argument seems to me to be built around the assumtion that my argument is inherently dumb, and that what you are presenting is fact, which I think you will have a very hard time proving.

 

[Babbler]

I remember reading an article by the late Martin Gardner about General Semantics, E-Prime and the crazy Pole from who invented them. I remember talking to a family friend about it over Thanksgiving as well. Both were not positive about it, to say the least.

So you can "to bes" from my dead cold hands.

 

[Souron]

I don't think that preempting what one believes with "I think" is a good general practice. All that achieves is make you sound less certain. Certainly it is a bad practice in formal writing.

And I disagree with the OPs idea that the cause of a lot of debate is asserting ones judgmental beliefs with the same vocabulary as empirical facts is the cause of many arguments. Arguments are caused by differences in ideas, not differences in language.

 

[Xanikk999]

Sounds about as pointless as what Noah Webster proposed for English in the United States.

There is no need to fix what isn't broken. I read the article and your example but i am not convinced E-Prime has any real use. If anything using it would make confusion more possible.

 

[Elrohir]

Ironically, this type of argument seems like one of the ones I was speaking against in the OP. Much of that argument seems to me to be built around the assumtion that my argument is inherently dumb, and that what you are presenting is fact, which I think you will have a very hard time proving.

That's [ie, that is] the downside of E-Prime, you need a lot more words.

I was trying to present the final sentence a suggestion, not a demand, or in other words "try this if you want to" not "do what I say because I say so." As well, I don't think I used the verb "to be" anywhere in that sentence, or that entire post actually, other than ironically to prove a point. I think you might be misinterpreting what I'm [ie, I AM] trying to say.

Your dogmatism offends me!

(The fact that you're unable to defend not using the verb "to be" without relying on it is pretty telling evidence that it's not practical.)

 

[JollyRoger]

Your dogmatism offends me!

Your e-primal scream soothes the pain inflicted on the conversation by such dogamtic outbursts.

 

[kill fire]

Your dogmatism offends me!

(The fact that you're unable to defend not using the verb "to be" without relying on it is pretty telling evidence that it's not practical.)

First, I used "to be" in the first quote ironically to point out what I saw the flaw in your argument to be, which is why I bolded them. In the second quote, I wasn't even attempting to use E-Prime. In the third, I slipped up a few times. Are you saying you have never once in your entire life made a typo?

If you got the impression that I think that all people should try to use E-Prime instead of normal English, then sorry, I wasn't trying to send that message. The whole reason I made this thread was to present the idea, and suggest an experiment.

Also, one example doesn't prove a theory. Just because I slipped up a few times doesn't seem to me to therefore prove that E-Prime as a whole must be impractical.

And finally, just to point something out, I don't see how just about any of the claims you made before can be considered "indisputable facts." Like for example, "the sun is hot." Define hot. "Hot" could mean anything. "That (referring to E-Prime) is dumb." By what scale? What test can you perform to prove whether or not something is inherently stupid? However, "To the best of my knowledge, the temperature of the surface of the sun aproximates 9,941 °F" seems like a much more testable claim, and "I find E-Prime counter-productive" only claims to be an opinion, and therefore requires no testing.

 

[Elrohir]

First, I used "to be" in the first quote ironically to point out what I saw the flaw in your argument to be, which is why I bolded them. In the second quote, I wasn't even attempting to use E-Prime. In the third, I slipped up a few times. Are you saying you have never once in your entire life made a typo?

I say now that it shows that you can't practice what you preach. That doesn't necessarily make what you say wrong -- saying that exemplifies a variant of an ad hominem fallacy, after all -- but it seems to me to show exactly how silly you are.

If you got the impression that I think that all people should try to use E-Prime instead of normal English, then sorry, I wasn't trying to send that message. The whole reason I made this thread was to present the idea, and suggest an experiment.

That seemed to be to be what it sounded like.

And finally, just to point something out, I don't see how just about any of the claims you made before can be considered "indisputable facts." Like for example, "the sun is hot." Define hot. "Hot" could mean anything. "That (referring to E-Prime) is dumb." By what scale? What test can you perform to prove whether or not something is inherently stupid? However, "To the best of my knowledge, the temperature of the surface of the sun aproximates 9,941 °F" seems like a much more testable claim, and "I find E-Prime counter-productive" only claims to be an opinion, and therefore requires no testing.

How about the test of "E-Prime should reduce conflict, but the very creation of a thread on E-Prime has created conflict on CFC"? How about "I, quite purposefully, have not used the forbidden verb at all in this post, and we still seem to be arguing"? It seems that E-Prime simply results in weirdly worded paragraphs, and does not actually reduce conflict. It seems to me that this could have to do with the fact that although style matters, content matters even more, and that cannot be affected by the use of E-Prime.

I suspect that you shall simply say something like "Well, it seems like you aren't really trying!" To which, if I bother, I shall respond "It seems like I am, to me!" And then we will have that simplest of situations where two minds simply have different ideas, which only an objective idea can solve. An idea which cannot exist solely in terms of individuals.

 

[Bill3000]

The OP is missing the point in that "be" is used in far more situations than simply existential claims, anyway, like for example, all of the progressive tenses. ("I am swimming" etc) Removing "to be" would be removing far too many useful ways of speaking for it to be worthwhile. If claims of certainty was really a bother he can simply just add an adverb like "probably" or whatever to his claims. (There is a language in which the speaker is grammatically required to gauge the certainty of the sentence he speaks!)