Fun at work: My bit on the verb "To be"

[Richter]

My manager requested this as a joke, I decided to deliver:

Forms of the Verb "To be" in 21st century Northeastern United States Linguistics.
The verb "To be" is a vital part of any language, as it allows succinct statements to be made about the condition of any person place or thing.  This verb, while not denoting a gross action, such as verbs to run, to drink, to fall, etc, instead is implying a basic state later to be clarified by adjectives later in the statement being made.  "My socks are wet.", "Your car was towed", or "His house will be painted blue", for example.  Additionally, even without modifier, the statement "I am", may be the only true one any person can make, according to the philosophical works of Renee Descartes, as part of the implications of his Dualistic theory. 

Used in common parleyance, the verb can take many forms, depending on the tense and the object being referred to.  "I am", "I was", "I will be", "I am fixing to be", are common (translated) examples from Latin, Romance Languages, and Romance influenced Languages.

Speaking without use of this verb is a crucial part of the system of speech known as E-Prime.  E Prime seeks to avoid making statements based on incorrect observations or gross personal assertions be excluding use of "To be".  As an example, the statement "The system is down." in E Prime would read, "The system seems to be down."  Stated as such, the possibility of incorrect observation or personal bias towards condition (of the aforementioned "system", in our example) is avoided, and only the condition the speaker has observed and reports on is asserted, not the actual state.  While perhaps ultimately correct (Again with respect to Cartesian Dualism), the uncertainty and inexact nature inherent in these statements makes them appear lacking in confidence, and are ineffective for human interactions in which relaying directness and confidence in a statement may trump specific veracity or semantics.

[LMNO]

I appear to be enjoying your post.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

it appears to me that this post may deserve

[Payne]

...

[Triple Zero]

...

What, did you use up all your be's for the World Cup?

DIDNT THINK SO!

BESEECH THEM WITH BE'S OH MESSIAH

[Doktor Howl]

Even as a joke, that gets me madder than hell.   

[Richter]

how so?  The content, or that I'd take the tiem to spell it out for someone?

So far today I've had to explain verbs, prepositions, impersonal pronouns, and basic division.  I was seriously questioned on the division too.  Apparently math is a religion and beleif is optional now.  I defy anyone who beleives they can balance accounts with their bible instead.

 

[LMNO]

how so?  The content, or that I'd take the tiem to spell it out for someone?

So far today I've had to explain verbs, prepositions, impersonal pronouns, and basic division.  I was seriously questioned on the division too.  Apparently math is a religion and beleif is optional now.  I defy anyone who beleives they can balance accounts with their bible instead.

Please explain in greater detail.

[Doktor Howl]

how so?  The content, or that I'd take the tiem to spell it out for someone?

So far today I've had to explain verbs, prepositions, impersonal pronouns, and basic division.  I was seriously questioned on the division too.  Apparently math is a religion and beleif is optional now.  I defy anyone who beleives they can balance accounts with their bible instead.

If people weren't so funny, I'd advocate fumigation.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I'm just going to say again, that E-prime has no necessary connection to sounding wishy-washy or unsure. This popular misconception about E-Prime (at least on this board) arises from E-Prime proponents who apply the idea in a lazy, superficial manner. This then gets perpetuated by people who don't bother to thoroughly research the idea independently from their experience with these E-Prime buttfaces.

Merely substituting "seems to be" for "to be" and similar swaps form the basis for this ignorant position and has a facile relation to Korzybski's original critique. His qualm with "to be" rests in the "is of identity," not when it takes the form of an auxillary verb. Korzybski said, "There were no structural problems with the verb "to be" when used as an auxiliary verb or when used to state existence or location. It was even 'OK' sometimes to use the faulty forms of the verb 'to be,' as long as one was aware of their structural limitations." Many critiques of E-Prime rely on Bourland's take on this, not Korzybski's more nuanced position—who came up with the ideas that Bourland repackaged and called "E-Prime" in the first place. I strongly believe that a Korzybskian E-Prime can reduce the amount of menu in one's intestinal tract. Not eliminate, mind you, but reduce. However, this requires an honest reckoning with Korzybski's original thoughts not a gross oversimplification of it which relies on indolent substitutions.

As a parallel, consider how bogged down people get with their identity, suffocating themselves in a claustrophobic role: "I'm an ugly, fatass failure. Such vulgarity is beneath me, I am a Rhodes Scholar! I'm just a worthless slur. I am, like OMG, totally an Apple person, LOL." This shortcut to personhood makes people mistake themselves for a mask, and they act accordingly—hollow and forced. I suggest that this situation ranks among only one of the many likely consequences of "to be" riddled communication. And it stems from an avoidance of the complex and nuanced by clinging to simplistic sloth.

By avoiding the painfully boring passive voice and the plethora of retardation that it births, language shifts in emphasis from overgeneralized, static things to specific details of dynamic processes. This reflects chaos with more accuracy and leads to less misunderstanding, but also a tendency toward the verbose (lookit all my paragaphs!). It also doesn't come naturally without a great deal of practice, resulting in the lazy and wishy washy application I noted above, a stilted tone, and an inattention to context. In situations that demand rapid communication over precision only the most foolish of E-Prime adherents would allow this linguistic tool to become yet another facet of language to fall on their faces with.

When I am interested in sober clarity, I bust out the Korzybskian E-Prime, K-Prime perhaps, to grapple unflinchingly with the horrible complexities and uncertainties of reality. When I'm interested in Fun, I don't give a flying knuckle-fuck.

[Telarus]

Net gets my .

[Richter]

I'm just going to say again, that E-prime has no necessary connection to sounding wishy-washy or unsure. This popular misconception about E-Prime (at least on this board) arises from E-Prime proponents who apply the idea in a lazy, superficial manner. This then gets perpetuated by people who don't bother to thoroughly research the idea independently from their experience with these E-Prime buttfaces.

Merely substituting "seems to be" for "to be" and similar swaps form the basis for this ignorant position and has a facile relation to Korzybski's original critique. His qualm with "to be" rests in the "is of identity," not when it takes the form of an auxillary verb. Korzybski said, "There were no structural problems with the verb "to be" when used as an auxiliary verb or when used to state existence or location. It was even 'OK' sometimes to use the faulty forms of the verb 'to be,' as long as one was aware of their structural limitations." Many critiques of E-Prime rely on Bourland's take on this, not Korzybski's more nuanced position—who came up with the ideas that Bourland repackaged and called "E-Prime" in the first place. I strongly believe that a Korzybskian E-Prime can reduce the amount of menu in one's intestinal tract. Not eliminate, mind you, but reduce. However, this requires an honest reckoning with Korzybski's original thoughts not a gross oversimplification of it which relies on indolent substitutions.

As a parallel, consider how bogged down people get with their identity, suffocating themselves in a claustrophobic role: "I'm an ugly, fatass failure. Such vulgarity is beneath me, I am a Rhodes Scholar! I'm just a worthless slur. I am, like OMG, totally an Apple person, LOL." This shortcut to personhood makes people mistake themselves for a mask, and they act accordingly—hollow and forced. I suggest that this situation ranks among only one of the many likely consequences of "to be" riddled communication. And it stems from an avoidance of the complex and nuanced by clinging to simplistic sloth.

By avoiding the painfully boring passive voice and the plethora of retardation that it births, language shifts in emphasis from overgeneralized, static things to specific details of dynamic processes. This reflects chaos with more accuracy and leads to less misunderstanding, but also a tendency toward the verbose (lookit all my paragaphs!). It also doesn't come naturally without a great deal of practice, resulting in the lazy and wishy washy application I noted above, a stilted tone, and an inattention to context. In situations that demand rapid communication over precision only the most foolish of E-Prime adherents would allow this linguistic tool to become yet another facet of language to fall on their faces with.

When I am interested in sober clarity, I bust out the Korzybskian E-Prime, K-Prime perhaps, to grapple unflinchingly with the horrible complexities and uncertainties of reality. When I'm interested in Fun, I don't give a flying knuckle-fuck.

Well this bit was done in the name of the fun.  Everyone involved is amused and slightly confused

[Telarus]

...SNIP...



Well this bit was done in the name of the fun.  Everyone involved is amused and slightly confused

And that totally earns as well!

[Richter]

how so?  The content, or that I'd take the tiem to spell it out for someone?

So far today I've had to explain verbs, prepositions, impersonal pronouns, and basic division.  I was seriously questioned on the division too.  Apparently math is a religion and beleif is optional now.  I defy anyone who beleives they can balance accounts with their bible instead.

Please explain in greater detail.

I can't give specifics, but it was akin to being asked to divide $21 into 4 equal portions with only whole dollar amounts.  The concept of cents being due, setting un-equal dollar amount, or starting with $20 instead was unacceptable because "we have other accounts that have done it."

I asked to see those accounts, if they existed something was seriously wrong, and we should investigate.
After a review and some referencing a calculator, this was cleared up, and dollars and cents portions were OK.  Reasonable people, just a moment of confusion.  

This still is better than the day I had to stop everything to teach remedial algebra to a loan processing team.

[Freeky]

how so?  The content, or that I'd take the tiem to spell it out for someone?

So far today I've had to explain verbs, prepositions, impersonal pronouns, and basic division.  I was seriously questioned on the division too.  Apparently math is a religion and beleif is optional now.  I defy anyone who beleives they can balance accounts with their bible instead.

Please explain in greater detail.

I can't give specifics, but it was akin to being asked to divide $21 into 4 equal portions with only whole dollar amounts.  The concept of cents being due, setting un-equal dollar amount, or starting with $20 instead was unacceptable because "we have other accounts that have done it."

I asked to see those accounts, if they existed something was seriously wrong, and we should investigate.
After a review and some referencing a calculator, this was cleared up, and dollars and cents portions were OK.  Reasonable people, just a moment of confusion.  

This still is better than the day I had to stop everything to teach remedial algebra to a loan processing team.