"Starting with the first paper written concerning E-prime, the writer
    has offered this subset of English as an extensional device. ...
    [Korzybski] gave the following as his extensional devices: indexes,
    dates, use of the etc., quotes, and hyphens. ...  "Now, no one ... has
    ever attacked the extensional device status of the _hyphen_, say,
    because it does not solve/resolve all the problems of language. (Shall
    we review the second "Non-Aristotelian Law"?) ...  Similarly, E-prime
    does not make it impossible to talk like a ninny, or a bigot, or a
    confused human, etc. However, it can help significantly in preventing
    the development of many serious problems."
-- D. David Bourland, Jr., "Too Far?", Etc. Vol 50 No 3 (Fall 1993)


I'll second Craig Presson's defence of E-prime.  In the same way that one
can write bad programs in any computer language, one can speak nonsense in
any human language.  Some computer languages make it easier to program in
certain ways, and -- deliberately -- more difficult to program in certain
other ways.  So it is with E-prime.  The point of using English without "to
be" is not to use English without "to be".  It is to raise one's awareness
of certain pernicious habits of thought which "to be" is particularly
suited to verbalising.  They can be and sometimes are verbalised without
"to be", and some uses of "to be" are harmless, but the advantage of simply
eliminating "to be" is just that -- simplicity.  Treat it as an exercise in
the use of language.  Stick to the one rule of not using "is", and
endeavour to write good English within that constraint.  When I find myself
writing stilted E-prime, it is usually because I haven't thought clearly
enough about what I mean, not because there is no fluent way to express it.
Sometimes I discover that eliminating "is" requires me to stand more
explicitly behind my statements, make them more concrete and localised,
provide evidence, etc. and I learn something when I find myself reluctant
to do that.

For me, E-prime is an exercise in consciousness-raising -- consciousness of
abstraction.  It is one tool among many -- for example, learning almost any
language different from one's native tongue will help, as will the GS tools
of indexing, grounding of abstractions, etc., an acquaintance with the
works of Robert Anton Wilson, the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness,
Neurolinguistic Programming, queer politics, and the Hothead Paisan comic
strip (to list but some of the influences I can identify on my own
philosophico-linguistic views and habits of thought).

You will notice that I have not troubled to write the above in E-prime.  My
purpose in using E-prime is as described above, an exercise to develop
certain thought processes.  It is no more necessary to me to speak entirely
in E-prime than it is to entirely eschew mechanised transport if I want to
keep fit.  But equally, if I want to keep fit and get fitter, I can't stand
on "being" fit, I have to keep exercising.

In <9407052109.AA06574@gw.PacBell.COM>, Dan'l DanehyOakes writes:
> My own take:  E-prime is useless.  (Or, to those who don't speak
> standard English anymore:  E-prime does not meet, does not come
> anywhere near to meeting, its goals.)

Whether I agree with your criticism or not, I much prefer your E-prime
formulation.  Contrast the plonking is-ness of the E version with the
concrete clarity of the E-prime.  And you didn't have to use any tortuous
constructions to avoid the "is".  See, it works!  It's not a universal
remedy, of course -- GS is more than just E-prime (and, for that matter, my
own interests in this area go beyond GS).  For example, your E-prime
formulation attributes goals to E-prime.  Its inventor had goals, its users
have their several goals, but the language itself just exists.  I'm not
attributing to you the view that E-prime is a sentient object with goals,
just observing that you don't say whose goals you're talking about.

I've said why I use E-prime; do you believe it is useless for my goals?

In <9407060021.AA18504@gw.PacBell.COM>, Dan'l DanehyOakes writes:
>Yes, E' has very definitely obscured GS; in fact, it has downright
>muddied it.

Sorry, *who* has muddied it?

-- Richard Kennaway, jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk, Univ. of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.


 ============================================================

I think we've tuned into more or less the same wavelength here, Craig. I
realise that my 6th-grade teacher might say that I "am" using an "is" here.
On the other hand, I tend to think of my 6th-grade teacher as pretty stupid.
In the long run, I would tend to say myself that the passage above obeys the
letter of the law while totally subverting its spirit. After all, the guy who
invented E' only defined it as "English without 'to be'." But let's not let
this discussion degenerate into a discussion of whether or not the sentence
above "is" using "is." A little thought will probably show that certain other
words in English can present just as much semantic danger. "Does" the
sentence above use "is," or "doesn't" it? One can pack just as much emphasis
and dogmatism into the words "does" and "doesn't" in the previous sentence as
into "is" and "isn't." (It DOES! It DOES! No, it DOESN'T!) On the other side
of the coin, many uses of the word "is" seem pretty harmless to me, for
example its use as an auxiliary verb (as in "I'm going to the store").

All this raises a question for me in the form of a number of alternatives:

1) We should continue to use E' as-is.

2) We should junk E', as it doesn't really help; as one can see, one can
flame, etc., without using "is," and one can avoid flaming while indeed using
it.

3) E' just doesn't go far enough, and we should try to extend
semantic/grammatical rules into a sort of super-E'. For example, perhaps we
"should" stop using "should." (I know some people who have made an informal
practice of this latter anyway; in 12-Step programs they call over-frequent
use of the word "shoulding all over yourself.")

As a tool for exploring these alternatives, may I humbly propose an extension
of E' that I call New English? I've worked on this project for a few years,
but for the past year or so work on it stalled. I will post the seminal
document (apart from some pages of scribbled notes, which I will happily
transcribe if people express an interest) in the following message. I hereby
open New English to others' expansion, exploration, and modification.

Ron H-E

 ========================

Dan'l writes about New English:

>While I agree that many of the reforms you suggest would be beneficial,
>the manner in which you propose they be implemented is unworkable.
>
>(Or:
>
>While I you-agree that many of the reforms you suggest would meseem beneficial>[how *DO* you form a subjunctive in this grammar?], the manner in which you
>propose all people implement them meseems unworkable.)
>
>NOT, mind you, because it would be "difficult."  Learning any new language
>presents difficulties; learning to think clearly presents difficulties;
>difficulties can be overcome.  But because the grammatical constructs you
>propose are _ugly,_ and anti-heritage.

As it happens, I discovered, you can find "meseems" in the OED. You can
derive the rest of the "-seems" easily enough, methinks. I wouldn't therefore
call those parts of New English "anti-heritage."

>The first point is pretty obvious.  The glommed-together possessives
>simply fall horribly on the ear.  I agree that it would be good to have
>distinctions between different forms of possessive (and, while we're at
>it, different forms of "to have"), but simply shoving "place" and "my"
>together to get "placemy" (or whatever) simply won't do.  It's hideous.

I agree; I don't really like it myself. As I said, y'all (good word, that;
should enter New English) can work on New E to produce something more to your
liking. An alternative occurs to me: what about using the roots in the form
of ordinary English words simply placed after the possessive? For example, "I
just got a call from my relation sister?" Or perhaps "I just got a call from
my relation my sister?" (The latter seems preferable.) It sounds a little
funny, but perhaps not ugly or unworkable. 

>The second is less obvious.  One of the glories of English is its vast
>vocabulary, which allows for shades of meaning simply not possible in
>most other languages.  You can completely alter the tone of a passage of
>(good) English prose by substituting "synonyms"; I know one writer who
>claims, quite seriously, that if you give him any passage of prose and
>allow him to substitute one "synonym," he can make it dreadful.  I think
>this may be an exaggeration, but the point is well taken.
>
>In between these things, you have the aesthetic center.  How would you
>translate poetry into this New English?  "My love is like a red, red
>rose."  ("Relmy love meseems like a red, red rose?")  "To be or not to
>be, that is the question."  ("Whether to go on living or to kill myself
>meseems the question.")  Each of these may be in some sense more
>"accurate" -- but are in fact _less_ true to the emotional states being
>described.

This point doesn't make sense to me. Why should we translate poetry into New
English? Anyway, even if New E were to suddenly take over the world, people
could still go back and read it in the original. Methinks all poetry loses
something in the translation; but people still read Beowulf and the
Canterbury Tales in the original.

>English can and does grow by the addition of new terms; the deletion of
>old terms happens only when they are disused.  The practical way of
>going about this would be, first, to propose replacement terms (such as
>your various grades of possessive, and related "to have," while you're
>at it); second to gain popular acceptance for them; third, to wait for
>"my" and "your" and "her" to wither away.

I think you misunderstand me. I don't intend for New E to replace ordinary
English entirely. E' has not; why should I expect something *more* complex
to? I've entirely too much experience waiting for my beloved Esperanto to
take the world by storm to ever expect that New E would. No, I merely suggest
writing-speaking in New E as a tool to clarify thought. If it becomes popular
among even a small number of General Semanticists, I'll feel quite pleased.

>Another thing I would like to see introduced, by the way, is a non-sexed
>singular personal pronoun, but something not as ugly as "heshe" or "sHe"
>or anything else I've seen proposed.  Perhaps rather than "personal," it
>should be an "animate pronoun," so it could be applied to any living
>thing, but not (say) a rock or a cloud of nitrous oxide.

Gosh, didn't I put that in there? Perhaps it exists merely in my notebooks.
Yes, I agree New E needs this. I have found it hard to decide exactly what
the pronoun should consist of.

Ron H-E

 =============================