E-Prime is the form of English language where all forms of the verb "to be" (is, are, am, was, be, being, etc.) are removed from general speech. It is a practice used by some in order to better understand where others are coming from, and generally lessen argument.

For example, instead of saying:
"The grass is green" or "Jazz is better than Rap"
you would say
"The grass appears green to me" or "I think Jazz seems better than Rap most of the time"

By using the word "is", or any form of it, you are slapping a universal, irrefutable, definite label on something. Just because you may say "That table is brown", does not mean that it is brown for everyone in every instance, yet that is what we're saying when using the word "is".

If in every moment of speech we used E-Prime, I believe it would lessen argument (seeing as how nothing is definite except to ourelves because we are all looking from our own point of views). I say this because humans like to assert that something is definite by applying words to it in order to explain what they are percieving. Then, when someone comes up with another word to describe the same thing, they in turn, fight about which word is the right word to describe whatever it is. If these two people used E-Prime, and used the words "seems to me" or something similar, I believe it would alleviate a vast majority of argument.

When you get in an argument (not a discussion) with someone, and it begins to get heated, stop and think about this for a second. Translate whatever the other person is saying into E-Prime in your head. Most of the time, you will find that the argument will quickly dissolve because you might find out that from their perspective they are right, as well as you are from yours. Sure, you can argue about who's a better composer, Mozart or Beethoven, for days on end. But when you stop and translate what the other person is saying ("Beethoven seems better to me"), chances are you will end the argument right there instead of trying to keep pushing the notion that Mozart is better.

Now the question arises: What about social standards of universally accepted words pertaining to certain things such as color?

I will address this in the following situation:
Let's say you open a box of crayons and pull out the one that's labeled red. You then go around and ask every single person you see what color that crayon is, and all of them say red. You ask a 4 year old as well as a 89 year old, and still, they say red. So you must assume that the crayon "is" red. Now what happens when the next person you ask is color blind or fully blind? They will more than likely not know which color it is. Are they wrong because the crayon "is" red but they can't see it that way? You could sit there and beat it into their heads that the crayon is red, but no matter what you say, it will be whatever shade, color, scent, or texture they associate with that crayon.
Now, bringing it back to E-Prime, you could say "This crayon appears red to me" instead of saying "This crayon is red" to avoid all the previous argument of trying to explain to people that the crayon is definately red.

Video from youtube that basically summarizes what I've said:


Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-prime


I have recently been digging further into this kind of thinking as of late, and basically want to see what you all think about it. I tried wording it the best I could in text, but I fear it may not make sense to some, so sorry.

Thoughts? Discussion? Completely dumb?

I think thats insane and totally true. E-prime should definitly be used, it sounds like the future of the English language. I would have never thought to look at how we communicate as an ideal to take apart. This entire philosophy, is just mind blowing. Or in other words, this entire philosophy seems mind blowing to me. Seeing as I'm very new to philosophical thinking, this is just crazy for me. But to some of you others it may just be another set of text. lol. Thats so cool

I think that's retarded. Effective argumentative style takes a confident approach, utilizing direct statements instead of indirect statements. This wreaks of bad writing style and political correctness. I am not a fan.

Then it appears to me that we would all be narcissistic individuals.


even if a person is colorblind, they will still have always associated said color with a specified name.

so even if a red object (to us) appears green to them, they would still associate it with the color red because they would not know that the general population sees it as a different color.

Yes, I have thought about this as well, and it's a very good point. I actually use this very situation when trying to comprehend/combat the basic theory behind E-Prime.

I have yet to come up with a thought process to explain that, but that's why we have a discussion! Maybe someone else can come up with something (IMG:http://www.glowsticking.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/happy.gif) .

For now though, when I get stuck at this problem, I just move on to something else. For example, saying something "is beautiful". We have all heard the saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and I believe that's quite on point. According to this philosophy, we shouldn't be saying something "is" beautiful, because to someone else maybe the object is not beautiful. We should be saying "It appears beautiful to me".

I understand your view, but the point here is to eliminate, or extremely lessen, argument. It's not meant to be a way to increase or better it, so the basic principles behind having a well built argument don't apply here.

It's so PC... Softeners display a lack of confidence in your own thought processes. It's UNDERSTOOD that an opinion is an opinion. People who point out "that's just your opinion" when you say something are trying to start an argument *based on opinion*... I don't think it's necessary to clarify all your opinions with "in my opinion." Think how much additional time it would take to transmit any information verbally!!

if the world was based on opinions we wouldn't get anywhere.

there are certain truths that must be acknowledged in order to move forward. if everyone couldn't agree on a color, oranges (the fruit) would never exist, stoplights would not have been invented, and all logic would have ceased to be of any importance at all.

e-prime is an interesting idea. i dunno if it will work. I am happy that people are taking a good look at language and seeing how we can fix it to make communication better. Id like to see a global language in my lifetime

I also understand this viewpoint as well. All I'm asking is that people think of the "what if" in this situation. It's obvious that we are all trapped in linguistic constructs that shape our mind and our reality, and that anything that might threaten this current viewpoint is blasphemy. I'm not necessarily saying that E-Prime IS the way to go, I'm more of throwing it out there to broaden people's view of thinking (namely, that their view isn't the absolute, only way to be, except to themselves).

Yes, I understand the notion that there must be certain things that are universally accepted by all in order to progress materially/technologically, but honestly I think people don't need anyone but themselves in order to progress as an individual (which gets into Zen Buddhism, Sufi, Hopi, and other religions/philosophies; ever heard the expression: "It doesn't matter what others think as long as you are happy"?). Basically I'm saying that just because someone else, or everyone else, says something is definite, shouldn't necessarily make it definite for you. From my standpoint, I believe you only need "definites" in order to progress materially/technologically (which I believe isn't even necessary upon studying Native Americans, Eskimoes, and the older civilizations of China, India, and Central America). In this age, we are obviously hungry for material things and technology (including me) which is why the idea of opinions might seem ridiculous.

You don't need someone to tell you that corn is corn or that an orange is an orange for it to exist. Let's say you were the only person on Earth and your parents were killed right after you were born. You would have no "word" for an orange, but you would recognize the orange as something tasty, edible, and easy to access. Just because there is no word for what your seeing and eating, doen't mean it doesn't exist for you. I'm not trying to change anyone here into thinking that E-Prime should be the new paradigm, it's just food for thought.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, yes FlowRate, I understand that an opinion is an opinion. But when you step back and look at things as a whole, everything is an opinion to some extent, there are just repeaters. Every concept, structure, and paradigm we have had to start somewhere based on someone's grasp of a certain idea followed by them slapping a word on it. From there forward, generations were just born accepting these concepts of the previous individual as truths without questioning it, therefore trapping them in a prison of semantics. Now, in the 21st century, things have been repeated so much without question over the years, that it seems completely absurd to even think about changing something. However, it started somewhere at some time as an opinion.

As for softeners or opinions showing lack of confidence in thought processes or speech, I believe that could also be debated. Yes, it may show lack of confidence in accepted "repeated fact", but it shows great confidence in what you truly believe, not what has been spoonfed to you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

To sum up my thoughts here, I think we only need the power of ourselves (not in the narcissitic view, but in an optimistic view) to achieve greatness. I suppose I think we should be putting more effort in exploring "in here" than putting absolutely all our effort to "out there". If we wish to pursue technology and materials, then yes, I guess opinions are obsolete, making E-Prime worthless.

I've got a question:
E-prime is English without the use of any form of the word are.
How would you say that you are a human?
Also, is the following allowed? "My opinion is..."? After all I am saying it as an opinion, but it is absolute that that is my opinion at the time of saying it.

I guess you would say "In my view I appear to be what I conceive as a human".

And according to this philosophy and what I've read, no, the statement "My opinion is.." wouldn't work. You would just say "In my opinion..." because it says to take out every form of "to be".

There are several paradoxical questions like these that raise good questions. Since I can't actually ask the founders of E-Prime every conflicting question, I guess we'll just have to discuss more and come up with the most logical way to formulate that without using any form of is.
Good question.

I feel like this IS silly. You should be able to express yourself completely regardless.

See, that's where I've been for a while, and I completely agree 110%.

This philosophy is pointing out that everything you say shouldn't be saying anything is definite (which is why they take out "is"). But what if in your view, everything IS IN FACT definite and absolute? If that's how you feel is the best way to express yourself, why shouldn't you be able to speak however you want?! Kinda conflicting...

That's honestly the major hole I've found in this mode of thinking.

A good assertion Azzie.



*Note -- By the way guys, don't get me wrong. I don't necessarily live my life by this philosophy, I just felt like posting it up and getting more views on the subject. My responses may be defending it in a way, but I'm doing that as a means to stimulate more discussion, not to tell you that you're all wrong for not agreeing with me. So don't get the wrong idea. (IMG:http://www.glowsticking.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/happy.gif)

I don't see any reason to pretend I could be wrong when I'm usually right (IMG:http://www.glowsticking.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) haha. Like I said, I don't think it's necessary to state that your opinion is your opinion. Literalism is pointless.

hmm.. I have much to think about.. will respond later..

You still use a form of are (IMG:http://www.glowsticking.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
I challenge anyone who reads this to come up with a way of saying: "I am a human", while not using any form of the word are (and it has to be correct grammar wise).
The first 5 good entries (by either one person or multiple people) will get a gift per entry (I'm serious, you'll get some points (IMG:http://www.glowsticking.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) )

lol "I identify with humanity."

Utter brilliance; points to FlowRate!

And Tico, thanks for pointing that out haha, I can't believe I missed that.

Maybeeee "I tend to allign myself with what I conceive as human attributes"

Points given to flowrate (IMG:http://www.glowsticking.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

SaGe:
yours is a bit borderline wright or wrong, you don't need to be human to have human attributes (a hand is a human attribute, but a monkey has got those as well (IMG:http://www.glowsticking.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) )
anyway, there is a way more easy one I just thought of (IMG:http://www.glowsticking.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) , I'm curious if you can find it out XD
Cheers (sorry for the late response, time difference made me miss the replies in "new posts" XD)