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

[Sean O'Donnell-Brown <sodonnell -at- CCMAIL -dot- WIU -dot- BGU -dot- EDU>]

ENGSTROMDD -at- phibred -dot- com said
---------------------------------------------
I understood there was supposed to be some sort of broad philisophical agenda
behind E-Prime; far more than the goal of clearer, more forceful writing.  I
read an Atlantic Monthy article some time ago that said (disclaimer: I'm relying
on memory here) that it was originally created by a fanatic Polish linguist
who believed that the construction "to be" led to all sorts of conceptual
errors in human thinking, which in turn resulted in political problems, social
problems, etc.
---------------------------------------------

Exactly!

Most responses to this string make reference to passive voice and specific
verbs. E-prime addresses much, much more--more than I have time to discuss on
my employer's time (though perhaps I'll put a summary together in my spare time
over the next week or so). I believe E-prime evolved as part of a much larger
linguistic movement labeled (I believe) General Semantics.

I strongly encourage anyone who considers E-prime a gimmick, a mental game
(like writing in monosyllabes and without the letter e), a response to the
overuse of "to be," or an assault on their writing arsenal--or that "it can be
taken too far"--to read _To_Be_or_Not:_An_E-Prime_Anthology_. I once leaned
that way, too.

My mind, of course, remains open.

Respectfully,

Sean
sodonnell -at- ccmail -dot- wiu -dot- bgu -dot- edu

*                                             *
*  "Support National Public Radio (NPR) and   *
*   your local NPR-member station."           *
*                                             *
*                                   -- Me     *
*                                             *