e-prime - View Single Post - Top Ten Arguments Against E-Prime

Square · 01-13-2006, 09:01 PM

My counter-arguments:

Ad #10: Yes, but I still can't see the point. The word "to be" may become an alternative for virtually any other word, and its inherent ambigousness doesn't help very much. People skilled in E-Prime use could still use various of different expressions, not having to resort to substituting previously used ones for a mere "to be".

Ad #9: I don't get the point at all! Did I miss something?

Ad #8: Why can't one just answer "He works as a professor"? Does it really sound too long, or something? People use "is" as an answer for virtually everything.

Ad #7: Perfectly acceptable? More like, "perfectly ambigous". Especially the phrases like "it's raining" or "I'm going to the store", which can be perfectly substituted with "rain falls" and "I go to the store".

Ad #6: Yes, but the E-Prime statement given bears a pretty different meaning. The evil of "to be" comes not from referring to identification, but from bearing thousands of different meanings which people often can't distinguish from identification.

Ad #5: And thousands of people not trained in general semantics may end up led astray. The point?

Ad #4: Wrong. The author of the text apparently lacks some understanding on the way languages work and how they develop. I can regard as an impossibility the introduction of new vocabulary for various meanings of "to be", or elimination of that verbs just in certain areas. As most people can't even tell between various ambigous meanings of "to be", I can tell it actually seems easier to learn E-Prime than try to eliminate certain uses of the verb (which, in turn, would make people just return to old, historical uses of "to be" in senseless contexts).

That sadly appears as the way things go: one can sooner created a constructed language with new vocabulary and grammar than try and change the rules of currently existing one - E-Prime just cuts the use of one verb (and several constructions using it), not attempting to introduce brand new grammatical design.

Ad #3: Ever heard of the verb "equals"?

Ad #2: First of all, that helps eliminate ambigous and meaningless terms - a'la "Newspeak". Second of all, you can still refer to a certain person as a "student" without the use of "to be".

Ad #1: See #4.

01-13-2006, 09:01 PM	#2 (permalink)
Square Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 18	My counter-arguments: Ad #10: Yes, but I still can't see the point. The word "to be" may become an alternative for virtually any other word, and its inherent ambigousness doesn't help very much. People skilled in E-Prime use could still use various of different expressions, not having to resort to substituting previously used ones for a mere "to be". Ad #9: I don't get the point at all! Did I miss something? Ad #8: Why can't one just answer "He works as a professor"? Does it really sound too long, or something? People use "is" as an answer for virtually everything. Ad #7: Perfectly acceptable? More like, "perfectly ambigous". Especially the phrases like "it's raining" or "I'm going to the store", which can be perfectly substituted with "rain falls" and "I go to the store". Ad #6: Yes, but the E-Prime statement given bears a pretty different meaning. The evil of "to be" comes not from referring to identification, but from bearing thousands of different meanings which people often can't distinguish from identification. Ad #5: And thousands of people not trained in general semantics may end up led astray. The point? Ad #4: Wrong. The author of the text apparently lacks some understanding on the way languages work and how they develop. I can regard as an impossibility the introduction of new vocabulary for various meanings of "to be", or elimination of that verbs just in certain areas. As most people can't even tell between various ambigous meanings of "to be", I can tell it actually seems easier to learn E-Prime than try to eliminate certain uses of the verb (which, in turn, would make people just return to old, historical uses of "to be" in senseless contexts). That sadly appears as the way things go: one can sooner created a constructed language with new vocabulary and grammar than try and change the rules of currently existing one - E-Prime just cuts the use of one verb (and several constructions using it), not attempting to introduce brand new grammatical design. Ad #3: Ever heard of the verb "equals"? Ad #2: First of all, that helps eliminate ambigous and meaningless terms - a'la "Newspeak". Second of all, you can still refer to a certain person as a "student" without the use of "to be". Ad #1: See #4.