Jump to content

Talk:E-Prime: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:E-Prime/Archive 1) (bot
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(22 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{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").}}
{{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
{{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 7: Line 13:
|archive = Talk:E-Prime/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:E-Prime/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice|age=31|dounreplied=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|small=yes}}


== Change to Bible example ==
== 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)
Attempting to fulfill a recent [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=E-Prime&diff=614148509&oldid=612447312 citation request], I found numerous [http://www.generalsemantics.org/the-general-semantics-learning-center/applications-of-general-semantics/the-new-american-standard-bible-in-e-prime/ excerpts from the New American Standard Bible, rendered into E-Prime by Dr. David F. Maas]. These do not include Romans 13:1, which was used as an example here. I went ahead and changed the example (I chose a verse from the [[Sermon on the Mount]], just because), which also meant changing the original from the King James. If anyone objects, well, ''you know what to do''. --[[User:DigitalBluster|DigitalBluster]] ([[User talk:DigitalBluster|talk]]) 07:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
:Good job. Now, how about fixing the 'A in W' example? By the way, these examples are a good demonstration how, despite good intentions, e-prime often actually messes with the intention of the phrase rather than fixes it: while the "kingdom" part is OK, the "blessing" part is screwed, if someone wants to dive deeply into theology. [[User:Staszek Lem|Staszek Lem]] ([[User talk:Staszek Lem|talk]]) 20:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
: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)


==== Yes ====
== reasoning ==
"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).
, that what i noticed also "The poor in spirit receive blessings, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them. "
[[User:Rtdrury|Rtdrury]] ([[User talk:Rtdrury|talk]]) 18:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
For first, in a way "blessings" it self appears to be word that is "telling how and what it is" but what me want to say is that, one does not receive necessarily blessings because they have kingdom in heaven. Also in a way "poor in spirit" is what we would not want to use in proper clear speak. As there is meanings behind the states that is told to be "boor in spirit".
'''"''(the ones said to be)''Poor in the Spirit, appear to receive Kingdom of Heaven ''(that is considered to be a blessing)''"'''


== Self-e-primed ==
As we do not really know, who are poor in spirit, we not even know what is spirit and what is meant under the spirit on that spot, people just assume that it is probably (Western Version of)intelligence, or the ones that lack mental stability (but why they lack it and when, how?) or more often also interpreted as the poor people who is assumed to have smaller mind and understanding because of the poor state of life that would normally limit to receive knowledge (as assumed).


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)
As in the end, people should have (in my view) be able to express all the sentences in pure truth also besides illustrated sentences. So how can anyone translate the meaning of this if we lack knowing what is behind the words? The real meaning.


i find this utterly sad... how little humour wikipedia have.
Also the sentence "receive blessings" can not we know to be true as is it One blessing or how much of an amount of blessings to get a Kingdom of Heaven?


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)
So in the end perhaps most near truth we can come to this sentence:


==An important issue which is not really discussed directly==
'''"Simple people are lucky to inherit Kingdom of Heaven"'''
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)
or '''"What a luck Simple people heave to inherit Kingdom of Heaven"'''


: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)
<ref>https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205%3A3&version=CJB;OJB</ref>
[[User:Waffa|Waffa]] <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/217.71.44.92|217.71.44.92]] ([[User talk:217.71.44.92|talk]]) 22:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{reflist-talk}}

Neither of those constructions are grammatical in English, without the definite article (aside from the "Simple" and "heave" and "a luck" typos; I don't mean to nitpick, just clarifying that I'm talking about something else). "Kingdom" is not a mass-noun like "soup". <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> 05:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

== No References for "Works Written in E-Prime" ==

None of these works have references or external links, and the pages for most authors contain no mention at all of E-Prime. Should every work on the list have a [citation needed] added? [[User:Brauden|Brauden]] ([[User talk:Brauden|talk]]) 18:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
:Presumably, the works themselves would claim <del>to be</del> <del>having been</del> (this is hard!) that their writers wrote them in E-prime. If they make no such claim and if no other source exists, we should remove them. —[[Special:Contributions/174.141.182.82|174.141.182.82]] ([[User talk:174.141.182.82|talk]]) 14:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

== 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)
:No. the real trick that your sentecnce 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)


::"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)
== External links modified ==


do you have any updates on this yourself, anon?
Hello fellow Wikipedians,


also, why do you give this "scholars grading" so much importance, anyway?
I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[E-Prime]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=728254811 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
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)
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.generalsemantics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/46011331-E-Prime-Bible-NASB-DFM-Part-07-the-Gospel-and-Acts-Revised-Edition-12-28-2010.pdf


== i am depressed because ==
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).


i wonder why the psychological effect compared 2 completely different things on that study.
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}


"instead of saying i am depressed" differs a lot when replacing it for "i feel depressed when". unless we include "because" in there!
Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 08:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


anyone knows why? [[User:Cregox|cregox]] ([[User talk:Cregox|talk]]) 01:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
== Unclear wording ==
: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 ==
In "By substituting these three verbs ...", which "three verbs" are referred to is unclear. <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> 05:01, 26 November 2016 (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-->

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 ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  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]