Wildway

As a wilderness educator, and a student of native traditions and languages, I've noticed the definite lack of a "to be" verb. It seems that every modern language has it, but no "native" languages.

Author Martin Prechtel speaks quite earnestly on this subject, in regards to the Tiwa (Pueblo) and Tzutujil Mayan languages, in his books, Long Life - Honey in the Heart, Secrets of the Talking Jaguar, and The Toe Bone and the Tooth.

Square

That sounds interesting. Though, actually, some languages evolve reversely. For example modern Russian has virtually lost "to be" during development.

Wildway

Thanks for the reply! As a student of Russian, my impression differs a bit - the language seems to shorthand "to be", rather than go without, much like a beginning e-prime speaker saying "My name - John", thinking they had figured out a cheat. In fact, Russian has exactly this construction:

I - student.

You - very pretty.

They - capitalist spies.

I don't wonder, rather than evolving from using to-be to not using to-be, that they instead acquired the construction at some point, but not the verb. All hierarchical civilizations need a way of naming and labeling specialists, such as masons, carpenters, bureaucrats, priests, kings, advisors, etc. If you don't have "to be", you can't label someone. You can only describe their activity, which in fact indigenous languages seem to consistently resort to, in order to "name" or label someone. The Iroquois statesman "Cornplanter", translated more accurately from the original language, would sound like "He plants Corn". You can find this style of naming popping up over and over among non-civilizational cultures, and intuitively it may already ring bells for you, when you think of native naming practices.

Wildway

C'mon. Fascinating subject. Someone jump in.

Square

Wildway, I agree on the "Russian" way you described, but most languages without "to be" find similar substitutes. Verbs may substitute adjectives, etc. "I - hungry" and "I hunger" don't technically differ as well.

Karen

I believe you can still label a person or thing in e-prime. Example. Instead of saying I 'am' a football player which implys everything about you connects you some way as a football player.

You could say, during the fall and winter months I play football at the University of Michigan. Having said this statement omitting the 'to be' verb 'am; you have qualified your statement as a football player by allowing others to know that having the label as 'football player' doesn't make up your entire life. In your example 'I-hungry', hunger characterizes a feeling, so you could easily say, I feel hungry.

I enjoy the replacements of the 'to be' verbs because the language becomes more specific, descript and it allows the person receiving your message to understand your meaning without climbing any ladders of inference. Lets continue this.....Karen

Wildway

Thanks so much for the responses, Karen and Square!

Hmm. I would propose the a 'label' differs from a 'description'. 'I feel hungry' describes how you feel. 'I am hungry' labels you. Also, 'I play football' describes your activity. 'I am a football player' labels you.

I don't see e-prime as something that qualifies labels, so much as something that opens up the opporunity to make them obsolete. Having said that, I know that one can easily say "I see a carpenter" in e-prime. I still consider that an "is of identity" kind of statement though.

And I reaffirm that I do see a difference in using a verb to describe something ("that leaf has/shows/looks green" or "I see a green leaf") and using an adjective to label or define something ("that leaf is green").

Square, I'd like to hear more about your assertion that languages without "to be" use a similar substitution method to Russian.

Karen

When you write that you consider the statement 'I see a carpenter' as an identity, e-prime would define that identity as a personal identity. I could look at that same person and say, 'I see an astronaut'. If you saw a person that had a tool box wrapped around his waste with the wording, 'Finest Carpenter in Town', and then pointed out that man to me and identified him as a carpenter, that would make your statement an accurate universal statement. To my understanding, e-prime identifies the observable, not inferential. E-prime does not reflect a catagorical imperative language. No language has perfection, but e-prime does act as an instrument to perfect the english language. Karen

Wildway

Karen-
Thanks for continuing the dialogue! You've said some things that interest me and I'd like to hear more.

I consider any professional title ('carpenter', 'astronaut', 'street sweeper') an abstraction that has the power to mislead, to provide the illusion of 'summing up' a human animal with a certain label. Because of this, I continue to explore other options in how I write about people who do activities that fall under categories that do not accurately describe them. I think usually, if I swept the street in front of my house, no one would label me a "street sweeper", unless I made my living at it. But what if I made my living in many ways, including sweeping the street? Using any one label to describe me would misdirect, using many would just muddle the issue that I engage in many activities to make my living. I mean to say, I don't think you can observe a "street sweeper" (an abstraction), but you can observe the activity of someone sweeping the street.

I do want to know more about your term "categorical imperative language"...I don't recognize it. Could you explain more?

As for e-prime acting as a tool to "perfect" english, my goal with e-prime use differs...e-prime, to me, uncovers one set of aristotelian mythologies associated with our language toolbox, and may leverage the uncovering of additional "modern" mythologies, so that we may choose what mythologies we find most useful, and refine our language in this way. Regarding "perfecting" the english language..I see each language serving the needs of the culture it enables. It therefore remains to us to decide what manner of culture we want. This connects back, for me, to indigenous language, and the absence of "career titles", the verb "to be", and various surprising ways of addressing objects/subjects and relationships in the world. This served their cultural needs and lifestyle. I keep open the possibility that some needs of mine I share in common with indigneous peoples, and their language tools may assist in meeting these shared needs.

I don't feel I've said this as clearly as I'd prefer...please bear with me.

Karen

I have pulled from your copy this quote, "I think usually, if I swept the street in front of my house, no one would label me a "street sweeper", unless I made my living at it. But what if I made my living in many ways, including sweeping the street? Using any one label to describe me would misdirect, using many would just muddle the issue that I engage in many activities to make my living. I mean to say, I don't think you can observe a "street sweeper" (an abstraction), but you can observe the activity of someone sweeping the street." My response remains, If you swept the streets in front of your home and made a living at it, then by e-prime standards, people would still not refer to you as a street sweeper. If you had gave out a card as a symbol of your career choice that clearly defined you as a street sweeper, then people could accurately call you a street sweeper. If you engage in many activities and would like recognition for these activities, then you could tell people who observe you doing your tasks that in the morning I sweep streets, but by noon, I attend University as a student and in the evening I spend time with my wife and children. From your copy, I read two different issues. One based on labelling and the other based on the action of the label. I have addressed the labelling part. I believe if you accurately label a person, the action will fall into place. As for catagorical imperatives, it means 'absolute'.
Lets' continue to dialogue. Karen

Wildway

I see that you think if someone self-identifies as a [blank], you consider that grounds for others to identify them as such.

I still feel troubled by the connotations of such an act, even regarding self-identification. I regard someone carrying a business card that defines them under some professional label as encouraging sloppy thought; it limits consideration of what other skills, capacities, and roles they might competently fill. Imagine if you met a 'janitor'. What would you assume about this person? A 'professor'? What if you found conversation with the 'janitor' far more engaging and insightful than the 'professor'? Would that surprise you? If so, what set up the assumptions that set the stage for perceptual bias? These considerations may not apply to you, but I find them ever present in my day to day life, as I interact with differing groups of people. If labels do indeed encourage bias, do we really need them? What do we need them for? Do they serve a similar obfuscating purpose as the verb "to be" itself?


Why would I self-identify as a student rather than a street-sweeper? Why do I need to self-identify as either? Could I just say 'I study at the University, I make my living by sweeping streets, etc.' and leave it at that? Certainly we factor 'convenience' in determining our use of labels, but sometimes 'convenient' means 'sloppy' or 'lazy' communication...do you know what I mean?

Do you understand though, why I see the label as extraneous to the observation? How the action exists, but the label does not...how we use the label to pigeonhole someone's role/'identity' in an hierarchical society?

Can you really 'accurately label' anyone? I refer only to certain types of labels that tend to obscure perception...no one could consider labeling somebody 'french' as the summation of their skills and capacities in society, but to me calling someone 'police officer' renders you blind to the fact that the 'police officer' has a lot of talent for painting, or leadership, or sailing, or calculus, or...do you see what I mean?

Karen

What bothers you about the word 'becomes'? Would you prefer using statements or replacements such as; has a tendency towards, characterizes, acts like, reflects etc. I could send you a list of words that would replace the word 'becomes'. Would you enjoy receiving this list? Karen

Karen

You said, "Imagine if you met a 'janitor'. What would you assume about this person? A 'professor'? What if you found conversation with the 'janitor' far more engaging and insightful than the 'professor'? Would that surprise you? If so, what set up the assumptions that set the stage for perceptual bias?"

Can you make the assumption that I would climb that ladder of inference? I don't really see where you and I have a difference of opinion. My point about people about people giving out cards with job titles means that someone can identify the work they do. That has nothing to do with their other abilities nor does it imply that if someone says I work as an a librarian that other people will assume this person has no other interests in life. If I tell you that I work as a facilator do you assume that that occupys every waking hour in my life?

If a person chooses to speak in language that reflects conveniency, then I say, stick to standard english. E-prime encourages you to speak with specifics. If you want people to know you have many talents then what prevents you from identifying these talents other than laziness? Why make people guess?

I agree that labels do 'pidgeon hole' people, but if a person takes ownership of a label, then I believe he has that right. I don't believe we have the right to label others without validation. I need to put clarity on 'accurately labelling others'. When a person hands me a card, or tells me their job description, then I can label that person. I would not just go out and call someone a _______without having validation of that title.

Lets continue this, I do enjoy writing to you. Karen

Wildway

Our opinions may indeed not differ substantially...I've forgotten if I saw that or not. What the heck happened with the forum disappearing for months, anyway?

I agree that you (as an e-prime thinker and writer) likely would climb the "ladder of inference", but I feel skeptical about others. I bring it up partially because I do tend to unconsciously pigeonhole people according to how they self-label (including your "facilitator" self-label...I see you in a room with flourescent lighting and flip-charts, but not walking a dog, writing a book, painting a mural, etc.).

So to protect myself, I shy away from others' willingness to self-label, as it confuses my thinking. I jump too readily towards a limiting of their activity. For me, smoke practically comes out of my ears when I try to fit unlikely activities with individuals who self-label in certan ways, i.e.

a "firefighter" who...dances ballet
a "lumberjack" who...programs software as a hobby
a "chef" who...tours the kickboxing circuit

The danger here probably lies in my assumption that this will help others; I admit I often try to generalize problems that confront me personally, as probably challenging most speakers, writers, and thinkers. This may not reflect the world very well.

KateGladstone

Re Russian:

Ancient/early medieval Russian (and its direct ancestors, as far back as linguistics can trace them) had words equivalent to "be" in the past, present, and future tenses. Late medieval Russian started deleting the language's "be" forms in the present tense only.

Chinmay

This topic seems very interesting....

__________________
☆¢нιηмαу☆`·.¸. The Rising ☆ of XI A5