Talk:E-Prime

correction

An anonymous user wrote:

CORRECTION: the inventor of E-Prime was a student and follower of Alfred Korzybski, Dr. Bourland.

W. Paul Tabaka http://Korzybski.Org

Almost E-Prime, but not quite

This article conforms almost entirely, but not entirely, to E-Prime. The "Criticisms" section, in particular, needs reframing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.239.232 (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't be trying to rewrite this article in E-Prime, just as we shouldn't be trying to rewrite the limerick (poetry) article as a series of limericks. WP:TONE tells us to "follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable" - rewording "these are category errors" to "these fall into the category of category errors" might be good E-Prime, but it loses clarity in tone, and is not how a "reliable source" (a newspaper or academic paper) would write it. --McGeddon (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is just too difficult to think in rhythm and rhyme, but it is easy enough to lean that way. The pillars of Wikipedia bare a strange resemblance to there subjects, as I reveal in my Essay on WikipediaStyle. — CpiralCpiral 05:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I did some research for another wiki on plausible in-universe justifications for the use of verse in musical theatre. I ended up making an analogy to improvised rap. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Unlike Toki Pona, English has more than one way to do it. With practice, one can rephrase something clearly without "be". For example, instead of "these fall into the category of category errors", say "these fall under category errors". --Damian Yerrick (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Of all articles on Wikipedia any editor should freely allow a sense of obligation to rewrite the article in E-Prime. It is now evidenced, by the publications listed in the section Works written in E-Prime, that the so-called E-Prime proves very highly able to clarify and make understandable both new and previously published articulations of all sorts. Critical thinking and clarity become a Rational Living Therapy as a practical state of personal waking consciousness. Can someone think habitually in E-prime? I must believe so. Unedited speech acts, all forms of improvisation, these seem to indicate intervals of an inspired "life sentence" in the prison ward of consensus consciousness. A consistent style might recommend the whole thing at once, but would anyone even notice of only parts of it were rewritten? — CpiralCpiral 05:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Except Wikipedia has adopted "consensus consciousness" as policy. See, for example, Wikipedia:Verifiability (that an article should reflect the consensus of reliable sources) and Wikipedia:Consensus (among editors). --Damian Yerrick (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bad Poem Translation

"Honey tastes sweet,/And so do you." does not convey the same meaning as "Honey is sweet,/And so are you." The adjective "sweet" takes on a different meaning in the 4th line of the poem which is completely lost in the translation. This is somewhat creepy and a terrible example of E-Prime. Perhaps there is a better translation of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.88.141 (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought so too. Besides the poem is very trivial. A more difficult challenge would be this famous sentence from the King James Bible, Romans Chapter 13: "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Borock (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Religious texts often suffer from an excess of "is". Sicherman (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses appear to have already gone halfway to E' on this passage in their formal-equivalent New World Translation: "for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God." (Romans 13:1, NWT) Change the first words to "for no authority exists" to complete the translation. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The comparison with the NWT in the article gave the appearance that the NWT takes a similar approach throughout that volume, which is not the case. I have therefore removed the comparison. The examples provided in the article already make the point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources for translations (King James, Alice in Wonderland)?

Are there sources for the translations/versions of the King James Bible and Alice's Adventures in Wonderland?

(or perhaps I will say instead: "Sources of translations exist where for "Bible Translation Accounted to King James" and "Adventures Recounted by One Named Alice".. <rolls eyes - would a title with an adjective phrase have an implied [and un-allowed] 'be' ?) Jimw338 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd've used "Where can one find sources for..." --Damian Yerrick (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

More examples

I would like to ask that more examples be added. Specifically for the Examples section to be integrated with the "Different functions of "to be"" section, to provide an example of each.

Full Decent (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Arabic

Arabic does have a verb 'to be' in the present tense - yakuun (يَكُون) It is not used in the same way as in English of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.182.20 (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What about "maybe"?

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, "maybe" comes (unsurprisingly) from "(it) may be."[1] Should we maybe add "maybe" to the article, or does "maybe" maybe qualify for exception according to an authoritative source? --DigitalBluster (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)