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

[LMNO]

Heh.  I've had to do things like that.  I blame the excel wizard.  It creates the formulas, so you don't have to.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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.