Re: To be or not: An E-prime inquiry

[Tina Sansom <kms -at- PLAZA -dot- DS -dot- ADP -dot- COM>]

> Marguerite Krupp writes about E prime:

> [...]

> > I tend to lump initiatives like E-prime, Information Mapping, Caterpillar
> > Basic English (or whatever its successors are called now), etc., with
> > bra-burning and the novel that someone wrote without using the letter "e"
> > at all.  They're all examples of an idea, good in itself, taken to an
> > extreme to make a point.  Then it becomes something of a religion, and the
> > point gets lost.

Len Olszewski writes:

> No argument here.

> I'd call E prime a worthwhile effort. My "is-less" writing conveyed more
> information in less words, with a crisper and sharper style (IMHO). I
> encourage you to rewrite something using an E prime approach, and see if
> you notice a difference. Sometimes, you need to restructure what you
> said initially when you rewrite like this, but even that usually results
> in a useful bit of insight.

Like many kinds of exercises in writing, this is a useful one to try.  But as
both posters I've quoted said, it can be taken too far.

Another interesting idea, along the same lines of promoting clear informative
writing, try writing with one-syllable words only.  I did this in a technical
writing seminar once and the result was really astounding.  The point is that
short words are powerful ones.  The core of our spoken language, some high
percentage like 60 to 70, is one-syllable words.  The only two-syllable words
allowed were those of four letters or less, or proper names.

All I could manage was one paragraph of truly one-syllable words.  But is was
very strong and clear.

--
Tina Sansom            "You see, it takes all the running you can do, to
kms -at- plaza -dot- ds -dot- adp -dot- com    keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere
(503)294-4200 x2326     else, you must run at least twice as fast!"
                              --Lewis Carroll,  _Through the Looking Glass_