NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a computer language too, but I know nothing about it and that's not what this thread is about.
No, this thread is about the language that is English in ever way except for it's lack of the verb, "to be." For example, this is the above in E-Prime:
People call an unrelated computer language E-Prime, too. However, I know nothing about the computer language and will not discuss it in this thread.
Rather, I will discuss the language which resembles English except for its lack of the verb, "-----." For example, below I have written the above in E-Prime:

What do people think of this idea? Does it clarify English, or just make it more difficult?

A page in favor of E-Prime (http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/epr1.htm)
One against it (http://learn-gs.org/library/etc/49-2-french.pdf)
Oh, what the heck, just go to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-prime)

Seems like a good idea but it's a bit late to be radically changing the English language. To be is engrained in our brains and won't be comin out any time soon.

Seems pretty stupid as it eliminates all continuous tenses (which I gather would render English even more of a flat language since one could not replace them with for instance imperfective aspects as English lacks those), the passive voice and leads to cumbersome constructs in what would otherwise be simple declarative sentences.

Yeah, I write stories now, and am going to be an author some day, and that would not be a good thing to do. That would probably screw up my English, and all those lessons in grammar would have been a waste of time...:headbang:

This is a computer language too, but I know nothing about it and that's not what this thread is about.
No, this thread is about the language that is English in ever way except for it's lack of the verb, "to be." For example, this is the above in E-Prime:


What do people think of this idea? Does it clarify English, or just make it more difficult?

A page in favor of E-Prime (http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/epr1.htm)
One against it (http://learn-gs.org/library/etc/49-2-french.pdf)
Oh, what the heck, just go to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-prime)

Interesting... I can see applicable uses for the language, however it seems to lengthen conversations by lessening verbal languages use of context through the course of a conversation/writing.

It also reminds me of a funny thing with languages.... When they were writing the 6th Star Trek movie they approached the inventor of the Klingonese language (Marc Okrand) to translate "To be or not to be" into Klingonese; which was problematic for him, since he left out the verb "to be" from the language... It ended up being translated from "slay or not slay".

I'm not a fan. Kind of gives off a Newspeak vibe if you ask me...I like being able to express the same concept in multiple ways, because that increases the number of different ideas about it I can accurately express. Anything that decreases that ability is pretty disagreeable to me because it limits the amount of different ways of viewing the same statement that are available. I strongly oppose any attempt to limit thought in the name of "simplification".

Plus, I like the passive voice. It just sounds better sometimes.


Roses appear red;
Violets seem blue.
Honey tastes sweet,
And you elicit love.

If E-Prime can rip a simple poem like this to shreds, I shudder at what it would do to more complex poetry.

Seems pretty stupid as it eliminates all continuous tenses (which I gather would render English even more of a flat language since one could not replace them with for instance imperfective aspects as English lacks those), the passive voice and leads to cumbersome constructs in what would otherwise be simple declarative sentences.

The "rules" do allow some uses. For example, I'm allowed to say, "I will go home" or "I have gone home" or "I will have gone home." However, I can't say, "I'm allowed to say..."
The passive voice is used more often than it should be, so that wouldn't be a great loss, and if one really studied it, he could probably avoid writing cumbersome sentences. Still, the point remains: why bother? All of these problems can be solved by using the verb less, but not abstaining from it all together.
And I take offense at English being called a flat language. It's ambiguity is what makes it so interesting.

The "rules" do allow some uses. For example, I'm allowed to say, "I will go home" or "I have gone home" or "I will have gone home." However, I can't say, "I'm allowed to say..."

None of which are continuous tenses.

The passive voice is used more often than it should be,

Nonsense, especially as you just used it to say it should be used less.

And I take offense at English being called a flat language.

This is me not caring. Look at me go!

None of which are continuous tenses.
I looked it up, it's things such as "I am flying" or "I was eating." I call that the progressive tense, I've never heard of it being called continuous. Makes sense, though.

Nonsense.

Sure it is. For example, in the sentence you quoted I used it when it was unnecessary. I don't carry the same English teacher phobia of the passive, but it's true that people use the passive to avoid saying the subject, e.g. "Mistakes were made."


This is me not caring. Look at me go!
This from the guy who didn't want to be known as modest or Swedish. :)

I looked it up, it's things such as "I am flying" or "I was eating." I call that the progressive tense, I've never heard of it being called continuous. Makes sense, though.

Continuous is what it is called in European schools. I've never heard it called progressive.

Sure it is. For example, in the sentence you quoted I used it when it was unnecessary. I don't carry the same English teacher phobia of the passive, but it's true that people use the passive to avoid saying the subject, e.g. "Mistakes were made."

It wasn't unnecessary and there is a reason people choose not to express an agent.

This from the guy who didn't want to be known as modest or Swedish. :)

I care about me and don't care about you. So, where exactly am I losing you in this?

Continuous is what it is called in European schools. I've never heard it called progressive.
I've always heard it called progressive. I don't know, maybe it's a regional thing.



It wasn't unnecessary and there is a reason people choose not to express an agent.Grammatically, there is nothing wrong. However, stylistically, writers are supposed to use the active unless it is absolutely necessary. To quote George Orwell:
1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Grammatically, there is nothing wrong. However, stylistically, writers are supposed to use the active unless it is absolutely necessary. To quote George Orwell:

Nonsense, I say again. Writers are supposed to write however they feel like, not like other people tell them to write.

Thinking about this, I change my answer to whatever it says in Strunk & White. Sadly I have misplaced my book.

Click Stand;13194878']Thinking about this, I change my answer to whatever it says in Strunk & White. Sadly I have misplaced my book.
I feel sadness when I hear of your situation. I find Strunk and White the best single manual on the English language that fits and that can fit in my pocket.

There exists a copy of the 1918 version here (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style)and here (http://www.bartleby.com/141/).
Speaking in E-Prime will bring me much grief if I continue.

The Grammar Nazis are after "to be" now...
Next will be Past tense...
to make way for the Future!

The Grammar Nazis are after "to be" now...
Next will be Past tense...
to make way for the Future!

Yes, it is all very doubleplusbad.