Professional Documents
Culture Documents
"It was found that the background linguistic system (in other words, the grammar) of each language is not
merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas, the program and guide
for the individual's mental activity, for his analysis of impressions, for his synthesis of his mental stock in trade."
(Benjamin Lee Whorf: 'Language, Thought and Reality')
1.0 Preamble
Although the reader might find other useful things presented in the appendices - for example a section
explaining the difficult 'progressive' TO BE forms, some hints on minimalist forms, etc. - the main platform of
this paper rests on establishing a handful of new language forms represented by templates supported by
groups of E-Prime phrases. That technique represents the majority of the (short) main text. Used together -
and the essence of the technique fits on to a couple of pages for easy reference - the templates and phrases
will produce pure E-Prime instead of normal English 'identity' and 'predicate' TO BE forms. The technique given
may be used for direct writing E-Prime (preferred) or translation.
Although the principal technique presented, and the supplementary 'rules', will assist significantly in E-Prime
composition - particularly when the concepts become internalised (see below) - they do not represent the last
word on the subject. Ultimately, writing fluently (and even more speaking) in this 'new' form requires hands on
practice. Follow the links - especially 'Speaking in E-Prime' - for other helpful writing rules.
2.9 Replacement Words/Phrases of Continuity for Replacing Auxilliary 'to be' Verbs:
continues, persists, persists in, carries on, maintains progress in, endures, perseveres, continually, keeps, keeps
on, without pausing, without pause, ceaselessly, without respite, without let up, with no let up, unfalteringly,
with no break
Appendix A: Introduction
B.4 Examples of Identity Form Translation (using the technique outlined above):
..a) Joe Bloggs is a pig
.Mrs Bloggs insists that Joe Bloggs behaves like a pig
..b) The Zygonwis are heathens
.Rev. Smith holds that the Zyngowis act in the manner of heathens
..c) The electron is a particle
.Prof Z says that the electron can be modelled as a particle
..d) Clapton is God
.Eric's fan club pronounced that Clapton has some of the characteristics of God
Note how the dogma magically vanishes from the E-Prime statements - this arises primarily due to the
reintallation of a 'speaker'. Previously 'out there' cast in stone, stand alone fact becomes revealed as opinion.
An electron no longer IS a particle, rather someone says that it can be modelled as a particle. Clapton no longer
IS God, the sentence represents the opinion of some of his fans, etc.
B.5 Qualification
As pointed out earlier, the language pattern NP1(TO BE)NP2 - or to state it more simply 'something' IS
'something else' - has, because of the blanket cross-mapping introduced by the all embracing nature of the
assertive 'IS', a peculiar implied dogma that leaves no room for debate. 'X is Y' says the dogmatist, implying
'and that is that'. In the real world, however, things tend not to be so hard and fast and, in order to more
accurately map the real world in E-Prime statements, the addition of some kind of qualification can be a useful
adjunct. Qualifications will normally be in the form of time/space and specific circumstances and remain for the
the reader to specify (although general word 'sometimes', or variants, could always apply - since no object or
process endures forever). Some examples of qualification - as applied to those already given - follow:
..a) Joe Bloggs is a pig
.Mrs Bloggs insists that Joe Bloggs behaves like a pig AT MEALTIMES
..b) The Zygonwis are heathens
.Rev Smith holds that the Zyngowis act in the manner of heathens WHEN THEY SACRIFICE CHICKENS
..c) The electron is a particle
.Prof Z says that the electron can be SOMETIMES modelled as a particle
..d) Clapton is God
.Eric's fan club pronounced that Clapton has some of the characteristics of God WHEN HE PLAYS A GUITAR
D.1 Description
Language patterns that use 'to be' to indicate progression or continuity take the form of: NP(TO BE)V where NP
denotes a noun phrase and V a progressive verb - one which indicates some kind of ongoing process. The 'to
be' form performs the function of an auxilliary verb.
Examples of progressive forms:
..'It is raining'
..'The dog is walking across the field'
..'The man is using a pencil'
..'I am working'
..'Joe was watching TV'
D.2 Preliminary Discussion
In practical day to day terms of engendering false logic the use of 'to be' forms as auxilliary verbs does not
represent a major problem - except that it supports the philosophically problematic subject/object divide, a
discussion of which lies beyond the scope of this paper. The principal difficulties rest in the use of the
structures already discussed where the 'to be' forms immediately precede secondary noun groups (identity)
and adjective groups (predication). Having said that, the assertive auxilliary verb forms share the habitual,
fragmentary language pattern 'NP(TO BE)' with the more damaging forms: that pattern fragment - with a minor
slip of the tongue/change in a trailing word - will immediately energise the other forms. Accordingly, and in
order to break the NP(TO BE) habit and reinstate some 'process' in the subject/object divide, the author also
suggests the elimination of 'to be' forms in the auxilliary verb pattern as well as the rest - wherever possible.
Having said that, the reader should be aware that the 'to be' auxilliary verb pattern comprises a common - and
limited - structure that does not readily lend itself to restructuring: a discussion of three available methods
follows.
E.1 Introduction
This section comprises notes/hints and tips on the use of E-Prime that wouldn't conveniently fit against the
methods given in preceding sections. Having said that, these comments have as much validity as anything else
given in this paper and accordingly should merit equal attention from the reader.
F.1 General
Strict E-Prime requires that forms of the verb 'to be' get eliminated entirely. Unfortunately, owing to the
habitual nature of the offending, dogmatic language patterns, which as discussed earlier will persist until they
become supplanted by something else, the practical elimination of 'to be' forms - especially in speech -
presents some formidible difficulties.
Although the total eradication of the 'to be' structure in language appears problematic in the short term (or
even the long term!), the elimination of the underlying logical patterns in the identity and predicate forms -
and the intrinsic dogmatism that resides in them - lends itself to fairly direct intervention with what I have
termed 'minimalist forms', quick fixes that appear easy to implement - even in speech.
F.2 Theory
To briefly recapitulate, all NP1(TO BE)NP2 'identity' constructions correspond to metaphors of the form
NP1(models)NP2: the TO BE form represents a blanket metaphor that attempts to equate all features of NP1
entirely with all features of NP2 - ie NP1=NP2 IN ALL RESPECTS. Likewise, in the predicate form, some QUALITY
attaches to the noun phrase through the adjective(s) using the dogmatic TO BE form. Using 'minimalist forms',
the 'hard' mapping of one part of a sentence to another gets broken down such as to eliminate the impression
that, what others have called, 'spooks' or 'essences' dreamed up by a speaker reside in the subject noun
groups. Using the minimalist forms, the following transformations occur:
Identity:
NP1 is equal in all respects to NP2 (English), becomes...
NP1 is similar to NP2 (minimalist E-Prime)
Predicate:
NP has all the intrinsic qualities represented by AP (English), becomes...
in my view NP appears AP (minimalist E-Prime)
F.3 Practical Application
F.3.1 Identity Form
As given above, this breaks the strict E-Prime rules by allowing 'is', 'was', 'are' as in normal English form.
Nevertheless, the technique supplants dogmatic cross mapping in favour of more flexible metaphor - which in
turn pushes the door to reasoned discussion open.
In a nutshell, the form: NP1 (TO BE) NP2s becomes the new form:
NP1(TO BE) like''NP2: where like'' represents 'like', 'seems like', 'behaves like' - any phrase containing the word
'like' or other words of similitude to cross map NP1 and NP2. The change in wording, although insignificant -
and easily adopted in both the spoken and written word - has a major shift in meaning in that dogmatic, hard
and fast IS relationships between one group of words and another become disabled.
As an adjunct to this, the reinstallation of a speaker becomes easy, either as a front end phrase or (even easier)
as a trailing phrase of the form: 'to me', 'to you', 'to Smith', etc. The latter operation restores attribution to the
speaker.
Examples:
..a) Joe Bloggs is a pig
.Joe bloggs seems like a pig (to me)
..b) The electron is a wave
.The electron is like a wave (in my view)
..c) The Zygonwis are heathens
.The Zyngonwis are like heathens (in Rev Smith's opinion)
F.3.2 Predicate Form
No need to break the rules of E-Prime here, and the form represents simplicity itself:
NP (TO BE) AP becomes the new form: To me NP 'appears' AP: where "appears'' represents 'appears', 'seems',
'looks', etc. Any phrase that suggests similitude. Note that the speaker must be included ('to me', etc. will fit at
the front or rear end of the phrase/sentence).
The word changes again bring about major perceptual shifts: the rose no longer IS red, it appears red to some
observer - a proper representation of the process at work.
Examples
..a) Joe Bloggs is stupid
.To me, Joe Bloggs seems stupid
..b) The rose is love
.The rose appears as love to me
..c) The radiator is hot
.The radiator seems hot to Sylvia
..d) The rose is red
.To Shakespeare, the rose seemed red
G.1 General
Purpose designed front end forms avoid general dogmatic 'is, are, was, were, etc' patterns used at the
BEGINNING of sentences and phrases and re-attach the speaker to his/her statements: see K.3 for a selection
of these.
The pattern 'NP1 (TO BE) NP2/AP' seems ingrained, and use of the following leading patterns - instead of the 'It
is, she was, they are, etc.' groups - although it won't immediately lead to perfect E-prime, will begin to supplant
a number of 'to be' habits AND restore the speaker as an integral part of the language process. The reader
must remain alert to the danger of supplementing the patterns given below with an added 'it is' - for example
'In my view IT IS...' and make a point of getting on with the subject of the sentence immediately the leading
phrase has been presented - for example 'In my view the car has...' In an attempt to pre-empt this, the
abbreviation 'NP V' has been inserted in the patterns given in K.3 as a reminder that the reader should get on
with the noun phrase forming the subject of the sentence immediately, and then the verb.
G.2 Active Verbs
Although the front end forms presented will displace the 'to be' forms at the beginning of phrases sentences
(and a whole lot of sentences begin with words in the form 'it is' - so this represents no trivial endeavour), a
yawning trap will await the unwary reader when he/she reaches the portion of the sentence awaiting
composition beyond the first noun phrase (NP). The trap takes the form of a temptation to immediately
introduce a form of the 'to be' verb - for example 'In my view, the dog IS a lazy...' Again, the tendency to use
this form lies in habit. Practice - and the use of ACTIVE VERBS immediately after the first noun phrase - will
assist in overcoming this. The English language contains thousands of verbs that will serve as'active' verbs, a
suitable one for any particular sentence can usually be found with a bit of effort. In difficult cases, the reader
should seek out a dictionary or thesaurus - or consider recasting the offending sentence altogether. The list
(G.4) below presents a number of active verb forms - many of them of a 'general' nature - suitable for use as an
alternative to 'to be' forms after an initial noun phrase. Conjugate the verb forms/add words of similitude and
conjunction to suit the form your sentences.
Note that many of the verbs presented take the comparative form NP1 (compares with) NP2 or AP.
Linguistically, this represents accuracy since the form ('things' modelled by language pattern 1) (model
according to) (language pattern 2) fairly illustrates the process at work in reality. In Nature, nothing IS anything
else - irrespective of what mistaken language patterns would have us believe. Such erroneous descriptions
originate in man.
H.1.0 Introduction
When I started on this paper, I wrote down a large number of phrases and sentences in 'to be' form in order to
both assess the extent of the problem and determine if all forms would lend themselves to expression in E-
Prime without undue tautology. I discovered that, without doubt, there exist some particularly difficult forms
and that usually at the root of the difficulty in translation lies the problem of deletion - the implication of or
removal of information by, or about, the speaker. I discuss several of these forms below.
In translating some of these forms I have not always used the formula approach given in earlier sections, nor
do I claim to have solved all the underlying problems. I do claim that with a little bit of persistence and
ingenuity, most standard English will lend itself to rendition in E-Prime.
..b) The first example, whilst illustrating the point, might appear trivial. The reader might care to use the same
process to pull apart statements like:
..b1) Party X is the natural party of Government
..b2) You are a stick in the mud
..b3) Z is public enemy number 1
..b4) The W regime is evil
..b5) Zongopop is cool
The 'to be' process operates in every one of these statements, and statements like these impose their dubious
logic upon our consciousness every day of our lives: example a) above illustrates how to unravel the root
process that occurs.
Appendix K: Some Short Forms
Links