To be or not to be: It is 'E'
Everything in the world seems evolving around 'E' in these days. 'E'
stands mostly for electronic, but, sometimes for English too.
E-Prime, is a language created by D. David Bourland Jr and here, 'E'
stands for English. Proponents of E-Prime maintain that the English verb
'to be' in all of its forms has no place in discourse. Thus, words like
"be, being, been, am, is, isn't, are, aren't, was, wasn't, were,
weren't" are strictly forbidden. However, no ban has been placed on
words like "has, become, will, would, do, shall, ought". Two wonderful
poems have been placed on a website about E-Prime, one in E-Prime, and
one in conventional English.
Conventional English
Roses are red;
Violets are blue.
Honey is sweet,
And so are you.
E-Prime
Roses seem red;
Violets seem blue.
Honey pleases me,
And so do you.
And, if Shakespeare's Hamlet's quote 'To be or not to be, that is the
question,' put into E-Prime, it will appear as 'To live or to die, I ask
myself this'.
 E-Prime's creator felt that these rules "reduce the possibility for
misunderstanding and for conflict". The reasoning for this seems firmly
rooted in the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, as they argue that the use of 'to
be' can create false security in characteristics (when we say "the coat
is red", we only know that "the coat looks red to me").
I greatly believe Sapir - Whorf Hypothesis, as it proves how a
language affects one's conceptual pattern of thinking. In other words,
language determines how we think. This comes handy in translating.
Translation theoreticians always get the refuge of Sapir and Whorf when
they get into a mind blowing transferring job.
The creators of E-Prime also seem to feel that the elimination of 'to
be' leads to a language based less on an objective view of reality.
Thus, eliminating statements of reality which include no epistemic
information (information about how we know what we know) forces us to
concentrate on the subjective nature of our interpretations. By adopting
this language change, the creators of E-Prime seem to feel that our
perceptions would gradually shift as well, and eventually, so might our
thoughts.
My primary scepticism involves the benefits of adopting such a
change. Even if the elimination of 'to be' in written and spoken
discourse could actually affect our perceptions of the world, I wonder
whether the resulting change would really reduce the possibility for
conflict and misunderstanding. Sure, false objectivity and lack of
epistemic information in language could disappear (at least partially),
but I question whether the awkwardness caused by eliminating 'to be'
might outweigh the benefits and create additional sources of confusion.
However, the awkwardness would vary from person to person.
I composed this entire column in a basic form of E-Prime (excepting
examples), and I did not find it overwhelmingly difficult, but I also
cannot imagine it working well in spoken discourse.
E-prime seems quite innovative to me, and although I cannot see it
catching on in everyday use, the mere idea provides a great example of
thinking outside of the linguistic box in language creation/expansion.
It seems like a good step towards precision language, and the idea of
eliminating words for higher precision fascinates me.
Thus, like many created languages, E-Prime seems destined to a
gradual journey down the river to obscurity. However, like all created
languages, it offers a new perspective and a new way to view the world.
I will end with a great quote from one of the E-Prime sites:
"You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can
fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds." |
