To be or not to be: The Question of E-Prime
by Giulianna LamannaJason and I were eating dinner at Uno’s one night when Jason wondered aloud, “What if, instead of seeing reflected light, we saw temperature?” Temperature constantly changes, with a single thing - let’s say, an apple - swirling between hot and cold. We currently see that the apple skin absorbs all light waves except red, and conclude therefore that the apple is red. Naturally, no apple is red. No apple has ever always been red, nor will any apple always be red. The words “apple” and “red” are not synonyms of each other, nor is “red” the only defining characteristic of an apple. If we all had heat vision in place of color vision, we would see the apple constantly in flux. We would see the world changing all the time, and realize that nothing is.
Enter Dr. David Bourland. In 1965, he coined the term “E-prime,” or English prime: standard English without use of the verb “to be.” E-prime arose largely from Alfred Korzybski’s school of thought, General Semantics. Korzybski, an engineer, claimed that the structure of language distorted one’s perception of reality. While the “hard” sciences had the straightforward language of mathematics, the humanities were burdened by certain misleading elements of English. Chief among these, the verb “to be,” which allows people to mask their beliefs or assumptions as facts, make connections between things that may have nothing to do with each other, and encourage the idea that the world - and everything in it - is unchanging. As Korzybski’s most famous quote reads, “The map is not the territory; the word is not the thing defined.” As you can see, Korzybski was not against using “to be” as shorthand; Bourland’s E-prime is far more dogmatic in not allowing any use of “to be” at all.
In writing this post, I’ve tried my damndest to not use “to be.” But that’s one of the disadvantages: it can be hard to shake old habits. Whenever I try to duck and weave my way around “to be,” it just ends up looking awkward. Certainly, with enough practice, anyone can learn to use E-prime gracefully; in fact, Jeff Vail’s A Theory of Power was written entirely in E-prime and I couldn’t even tell the difference. But learning it can be difficult at first. This may be one of the reasons E-prime hasn’t caught on. But another reason is encapsulated in most people’s reactions to E-prime: Who cares? Why should it catch on?
Why should people use E-prime? Although its proponents bill it as a simpler version of English, some sentences stump even experts. For example, how does one ask the question, “Is this your son?” in E-prime without beating around the bush (”Would you introduce me to this young man?”) or sounding like a character from a 19th century novel (”Do you bear familial relation to this young man?”) or sounding downright insane? (”Did you carry this young man in your womb for nine months?”) What’s the point in even trying to find a way around “to be”?
Does language reflect reality or does reality reflect language? Do we use the verb “to be” because we view the world as unchanging or do we view the world as unchanging because we use the term “to be”? Would using E-prime change our worldview, and therefore change the way in which we interact with the world?
Frankly, I haven’t made up my mind about E-prime yet. Until I do, I am hungry. And pizza is delicious.
Hey –
You asked “Does language reflect reality or does reality reflect language?”
In my typical moderate way, I must say both
But I think that reality reflects language much more often than we realize. To me, it has always seemed that much of the prima facia assumptions that modern humans hold are those assumptions buried deep within the language we use. ‘To be’ is an obvious example, but by no means the only culprit.
Good Stuff!
Janene
Comment by Janene — 13 April 2005 @ 8:15 AM
The philosophy of language is infinitely fascinating to me, and one of the main reasons I want to learn Khoisan. Is a tribal mindset even possible with a civilized language? At least English lacks the deferences to authority built into so many other languages, from Spanish to German to Japanese, where one can’t even breathe without acknowledging one’s “betters.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 13 April 2005 @ 1:44 PM
Giulianna,
At last, I found someone talking about one of my favorite subjects: E-Prime!
You wrote: “In writing this post, I’ve tried my damndest to not use “to be.” But that’s one of the disadvantages: it can be hard to shake old habits.”
I would suggest: “In writing this post, I’ve tried my damndest to not use “to be.” But I find myself at a disadvantage: it can prove hard to shake old habits.”
And for your…”Frankly, I haven’t made up my mind about E-prime yet. Until I do, I am hungry. And pizza is delicious.”…I would say that personally, I have made up my mind about E-prime. Because when I feel hungry, I say that. And when pizza tastes delicious, I say that.”
And frankly, I have made my mind that writing in E-Prime, which I have done for the last 3 years exclusively, has improved my writing and thinking in so many ways, but speaking it still offers up many challenges.
For “Is this your son?” one could always try “Your son, I presume?” or “Who have we here?” or “Who do I see in your stroller?”.
I can tell you another really challenging construction: Location, as in “Where is my son?” for which I can only offer the unnatural “Where does my son locate?” or “Have you seen my son?” or “Can you tell me where I can find my son?”.
Cheers,
Dave Gude
Comment by Dave Gude — 14 April 2005 @ 1:56 PM
Giulianna, I find that “e-prime thinking” requires an observer, a person perceiving the world, and that standard English does not!
You wrote: “(Trying to describe a warm day without saying, “It was a warm day”…”
A warm day from whose viewpoint? You? The “authorities”? God? I would say: “In the mountains yesterday, the sun felt warm on my back.”
You also say: “At some point, I think, every rule is followed for the sake of the rule rather than its spirit.” I guess I can see that. But the more I look at it, the more I like the spirit of e-prime.
And that leads me to a Big Question: Will observing the world while always maintaining a human viewpoint advance The Anthropik Canon and The New Tribal Revolution? I would suggest yes.
Cheerfully,
Dave Gude
PS: I recommend Andy Hilgartner’s excellent site, http://www.hilgart.org/index.html for the source of my ideas about observers in language and e-prime, and http://www.hilgart.org/milestones.html for a “milestones of human languaging” chart.
PSS: And let me tell you an interesting connection between e-prime and this website. I heard David Bourland talk about his invention, E-prime, decades ago on the radio, but thought about it again and learned to write in it only 5 years ago, when I Googled “E-Prime” and found among other things the Hilgartner site, on which he mentions Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael as a great expression in novel form of his own ideas on language, etc. which led me to read lots of Quinn books which lead me to IshCon which led me to Jason Godesky and this site! Wow! The circle of life.
Comment by Dave Gude — 15 April 2005 @ 8:12 AM
Giulianna, e-prime requires an observer, an intellegent viewpoint, while standard Indo-European languages do not! “In the mountains yesterday afternoon I felt the sun on my back” puts the human, the observer back into your “It was a sunny day.”
I trace my own path of discovery (from hearing David Bourland on the radio in the Seventies to Googling “Engish without verb to be” five years ago to Andy Hilgartner’s excellent site http://www.hilgart.org/index.html to his mention of Ishmael to reading lots of Quinn books while learning to write in e-prime to finding IshCon and then coming to lurk here at Anthropik) and I wonder:
Does observing the world from an e-prime perspective advance the “New” Tribal Revolution? I would suggest yes.
Cheerfully,
Dave
Comment by Dave Gude — 15 April 2005 @ 9:32 AM
You make many very good points. ^_^ I’ve heard that E-prime improves one’s thinking, and I have no doubt of that. Since hearing about it, I haven’t been able to ignore all the glaring “to be”s in my writing, and I’ve fried my brain trying to come up with replacements for them all. I’m sure if I keep practicing at it, I’ll eventually get it straight - and my writing will become more interesting. (Trying to describe a warm day without saying, “It was a warm day” can result in some fantastic poetic flourishes!) But I’m still not so sure about never using “to be,” ever. At some point, I think, every rule is followed for the sake of the rule rather than its spirit.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 15 April 2005 @ 9:48 PM
I just wanted to say, as a writer, I loved this idea!
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 18 April 2005 @ 3:01 AM