X-Message-Number: 17101
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:38:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: Eivind Berge <>
Subject: e-prime

George Smith wrote:

> There is a version of English called "e-prime". In brief, with
> e-prime you choose to delete the use of the verb  "to be" in
> communication. Thus instead of saying "I AM angry", you
> are a little more accurate by stating "I FEEL anger". What
> is the difference? Identity and clarity. What is the outcome?
> Potentially a revolution in your responses to the world.

I never understood why anyone would want to use e-prime. There is
no need to help your audience understand English by spoon-feeding
them like that. They should not be assumed to be stupid and can
easily translate anything to e-prime themselves, so what is gained
by doing it for them? You can express anything you want in regular
English, which has arisen precisely to suit our needs. English is
perfect; and you cannot improve upon perfection.

One could by the same reasoning argue that idioms and metaphors
are not "clear" or "accurate" and thus should be weeded out.
Clearly this is pure silliness.

Another example of this naive desire to be "accurate" currently
fashionable in some circles is the mixing of logical quotation and
American English, as seen in the above quote by George Smith. The
period and comma would be inside the quotation marks had he not
gone overboard on logic but instead heeded the traditional rule
for American English, which is what looks best, too. Yet another
example is people who feel they ought to avoid "sexist" language
(which seems to be most people these days) and therefore commit
monstrosities I won't mention (we all have our taboos, I think;
feminist language is mine).

When writing, the ideal should not be literal logic or banality,
but beauty.

Eivind Berge

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17101