Jump to content

Talk:E-Prime: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Sharpner (talk | contribs)
68 edits
"Advocates may also assert"?
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(195 intermediate revisions by 98 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Linguistics|importance=Low|applied=Yes|applied-importance=}}
{{WikiProject Constructed languages|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Languages|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject English Language|importance=Low}}
}}
{{caution|The question of whether '''this article should itself be written in E-Prime''' is discussed [[Talk:E-Prime/Archive_1#Article_written_in_E-Prime_considered_a_violation_of_npov.|here]], as well as in other threads. It is suggested that rewriting an article in E-Prime should not overrule [[WP:TONE]] ("follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable").}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 1
|algo = old(31d)
|archive = Talk:E-Prime/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Expressing “the film was good” ==


The lead states that “the film was good” could not be expressed under E-prime. What about “I considered it a good film”? Or does that contain a contracted “to be”—“I considered it [to be] a good film”? Either way, it may be worth mentioning in the lead. —[[Special:Contributions/174.141.182.82|174.141.182.82]] ([[User talk:174.141.182.82|talk]]) 13:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
What about the temporal meaning "to be" can have, e.g. "Breakfast is at 8 o'clock"?
:No. the real trick that your sentence contains "I", i.e., it is a rephrasing with significantly changed structure of the sentence. You will find similar example in the article, e.g, "I see this film as good". [[User:Staszek Lem|Staszek Lem]] ([[User talk:Staszek Lem|talk]]) 23:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
::"Some people experience the film as good". [[user:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] 10:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
: I think it's more that an utterance such as "the film was good" has the form of a universal objective statement about the world, whereas there is no doubt that "I considered it a good film" is an existential subjective statement about a personal taste. [[User:Sean_O%27Halpin|Sean O'Halpin]] 20:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
::Yep. This is a good illustration of why E-Prime-Prime, which our article does not seem to cover, is so much more practical: "It was a good film to me" and "I thought it was a good film" are equivalent and much more natural. In E-Prime-Prime it's permissible to use "the ''to be'' of identity" if it is explicitly qualified as a subjective perception. Whether derived directly from E-Prime-Prime or not, this is a big factor in [[nonviolent communication]] and several other approaches. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 05:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Nope. The correct equivalent, albeit clumsy, is "The film exhibited the property of goodness". And this zen-like trick creates loopholes in many arguments about e-prime; in particular, my version simply sweeps under the carpet the problem of universal vs. subjective. [[User:Staszek Lem|Staszek Lem]] ([[User talk:Staszek Lem|talk]]) 02:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


== reasoning ==
:I think that falls into the category of "location".
"To be" is the language of observation, tending toward abbreviated observation, fueling ambiguity/confusion, often fueling conflict. Also tendinf toward judgment (right/wrong), fueling the fire of authoritarianism (domination/submission, reward/punishment).
----
[[User:Rtdrury|Rtdrury]] ([[User talk:Rtdrury|talk]]) 18:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Need more examples. Could you do a passage in journey to the centre of the earth in e-prime? Please reply in E prime.


== Self-e-primed ==
: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. --[http://mncw.tk/] :)


Please don't try to rewrite this article in e-prime. This will be invariably reverted, because this sub-language is not commonly accepted. [[User:Staszek Lem|Staszek Lem]] ([[User talk:Staszek Lem|talk]]) 20:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
: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? [[User:83.104.250.235|83.104.250.235]]


i find this utterly sad... how little humour wikipedia have.
----
''An anonymous user wrote:''


would it stay alive if done in the talk page? i wouldn't do it, anyway! 🤣 [[User:Cregox|cregox]] ([[User talk:Cregox|talk]]) 01:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
CORRECTION: the inventor of E-Prime was a student and follower of Alfred Korzybski, Dr. Bourland.


==An important issue which is not really discussed directly==
The article doesn't very directly confront the fact that linguistic scholars do not find E-Prime to be of much interest or usefulness (insofar as they've even heard of it). For academic linguists, E-Prime is another in a long line of ideas arrived at by non-linguists ([[Basic English]] is another) which does not have much validity from a linguistic point of view. Whoever the "scholars" mentioned in the third paragraph of the article are, it's a safe bet they are not reputable linguists... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 18:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


:Huh? There an extensive section "Criticisms". I added this to the lede. (BTW, the references of kins "third paragraph" are not very good. For example, I've just moved the 3rd para out of the lede as an unnecessary detail.) [[User:Staszek Lem|Staszek Lem]] ([[User talk:Staszek Lem|talk]]) 19:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
W. Paul Tabaka http://Korzybski.Org


::"Some support it, some criticize it" is fine as far as it goes -- but as I said, it doesn't really address the fact that that E-prime is about language, while scholars in the field of the scientific study of language (linguistics) overwhelmingly do not find it of much interest or usefulness (insofar as they've even heard of it, which many wouldn't have, because it's so remote from what they're mainly concerned with in their day-to-day work). Robin Lakoff is a somewhat well-known linguist; I don't recognize the other names. It would be nice to have more material which is not sourced to General Semantics publications... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 23:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
----
'''Should the article itself be in E-Prime?'''
<br>
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''. --[[User:romanm|romanm]] 13:37, 21 Nov 2003 (CET)


do you have any updates on this yourself, anon?
:That's now fixed. I mean, er, I fixed that. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|Brion]]


also, why do you give this "scholars grading" so much importance, anyway?
::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"). &mdash;[[User:Ashley Y|Ashley Y]] 21:05, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
i personally believe that pure logic beats scholarship any time, any where. 😁 [[User:Cregox|cregox]] ([[User talk:Cregox|talk]]) 01:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


== i am depressed because ==
:::L. Michael Hall in his <cite>Communication magic</cite> mentions '''E-Choice''', a variant of E-Prime that seems the same as your E-Prime-Prime. Any knowledge of E-Choice, anybody? [[User:Mkoval|Mkoval]] 20:41, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)


i wonder why the psychological effect compared 2 completely different things on that study.
----
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). [[User:63.88.178.130|63.88.178.130]] 20:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
----
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.


"instead of saying i am depressed" differs a lot when replacing it for "i feel depressed when". unless we include "because" in there!
: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.--[[User:Crag|Crag]]


anyone knows why? [[User:Cregox|cregox]] ([[User talk:Cregox|talk]]) 01:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
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? - [[User:plasticlax|plasticlax]]
:Well, yeah. I mean that is kind of the point, to make a subtle change in the effect of the statement. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 03:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


== Explanation needing in asymmetrical relations ==
: 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. -[[User:Deicidus|Deicidus]] 06:42, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
What is followint text supposed to mean: """To be statements convey not only identity but also asymmetrical relations ("X heights more than Y"); negation ("A differs from B"); location ("Another castle contains the princess"); auxiliary ("He goes to the store") etc., forms that would also have to be excluded.""" at #Criticisms <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.116.165.130|87.116.165.130]] ([[User talk:87.116.165.130#top|talk]]) 18:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 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. [[User:Samrolken|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. [[User:VeryVerily|V]][[User talk:VeryVerily|<font color=green>V</font>]] 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). [[User:Benc|&bull;&nbsp;Benc]][[User_talk:Benc|&nbsp;&bull;]] 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. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 18:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is, after all, en.wikipedia. Not whatever the E-Prime.wikipedia would be called. [[User:Hyacinth|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

== 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". [[User:XB-70|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.

:--[[User:Crag|Crag]] 01:31, 2005 Feb 2 (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.

== 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? -- [[User:Creidieki|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... - [[User:Pedant17|Pedant17]] 12:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

== 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... [[User:Codex Sinaiticus|ፈቃደ]] ([[User talk:Codex Sinaiticus|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
....

::[[User:Whig|Whig]] 12:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

== "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?

Latest revision as of 17:53, 10 July 2024

Expressing “the film was good”

[edit]

The lead states that “the film was good” could not be expressed under E-prime. What about “I considered it a good film”? Or does that contain a contracted “to be”—“I considered it [to be] a good film”? Either way, it may be worth mentioning in the lead. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. the real trick that your sentence contains "I", i.e., it is a rephrasing with significantly changed structure of the sentence. You will find similar example in the article, e.g, "I see this film as good". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Some people experience the film as good". Randy Kryn 10:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more that an utterance such as "the film was good" has the form of a universal objective statement about the world, whereas there is no doubt that "I considered it a good film" is an existential subjective statement about a personal taste. Sean O'Halpin 20:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. This is a good illustration of why E-Prime-Prime, which our article does not seem to cover, is so much more practical: "It was a good film to me" and "I thought it was a good film" are equivalent and much more natural. In E-Prime-Prime it's permissible to use "the to be of identity" if it is explicitly qualified as a subjective perception. Whether derived directly from E-Prime-Prime or not, this is a big factor in nonviolent communication and several other approaches.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The correct equivalent, albeit clumsy, is "The film exhibited the property of goodness". And this zen-like trick creates loopholes in many arguments about e-prime; in particular, my version simply sweeps under the carpet the problem of universal vs. subjective. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reasoning

[edit]

"To be" is the language of observation, tending toward abbreviated observation, fueling ambiguity/confusion, often fueling conflict. Also tendinf toward judgment (right/wrong), fueling the fire of authoritarianism (domination/submission, reward/punishment). Rtdrury (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-e-primed

[edit]

Please don't try to rewrite this article in e-prime. This will be invariably reverted, because this sub-language is not commonly accepted. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i find this utterly sad... how little humour wikipedia have.

would it stay alive if done in the talk page? i wouldn't do it, anyway! 🤣 cregox (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An important issue which is not really discussed directly

[edit]

The article doesn't very directly confront the fact that linguistic scholars do not find E-Prime to be of much interest or usefulness (insofar as they've even heard of it). For academic linguists, E-Prime is another in a long line of ideas arrived at by non-linguists (Basic English is another) which does not have much validity from a linguistic point of view. Whoever the "scholars" mentioned in the third paragraph of the article are, it's a safe bet they are not reputable linguists... AnonMoos (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? There an extensive section "Criticisms". I added this to the lede. (BTW, the references of kins "third paragraph" are not very good. For example, I've just moved the 3rd para out of the lede as an unnecessary detail.) Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Some support it, some criticize it" is fine as far as it goes -- but as I said, it doesn't really address the fact that that E-prime is about language, while scholars in the field of the scientific study of language (linguistics) overwhelmingly do not find it of much interest or usefulness (insofar as they've even heard of it, which many wouldn't have, because it's so remote from what they're mainly concerned with in their day-to-day work). Robin Lakoff is a somewhat well-known linguist; I don't recognize the other names. It would be nice to have more material which is not sourced to General Semantics publications... AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any updates on this yourself, anon?

also, why do you give this "scholars grading" so much importance, anyway? i personally believe that pure logic beats scholarship any time, any where. 😁 cregox (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i am depressed because

[edit]

i wonder why the psychological effect compared 2 completely different things on that study.

"instead of saying i am depressed" differs a lot when replacing it for "i feel depressed when". unless we include "because" in there!

anyone knows why? cregox (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah. I mean that is kind of the point, to make a subtle change in the effect of the statement. Herostratus (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation needing in asymmetrical relations

[edit]

What is followint text supposed to mean: """To be statements convey not only identity but also asymmetrical relations ("X heights more than Y"); negation ("A differs from B"); location ("Another castle contains the princess"); auxiliary ("He goes to the store") etc., forms that would also have to be excluded.""" at #Criticisms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.165.130 (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:E-Prime&oldid=1233748670"