ATTN: NOLODEMIEL

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Crap. That might kill me. I'm game though.

[El Sjaako]

Yes, passive voice is sometimes necessary, but is incredibly disengaging when overused. That's one of the things I loathe most about e-prime; it relies heavily on passive voice.

But isn't e-prime supposed to be disengaging? Gland free communication for a sedate tomorrow?

Yes. It's a perfect form of communication for androids.

When I tell my friends about e-prime, they find it hard to believe that you can express (almost) every idea without the word "is". I do have one problem with e-prime: almost every mistake e-prime tries to avoid can still be made.

Allow me to demonstrate with an example from Quantum Psychology. RAW gives the following as an example of a wrong statement:

"The photon is a wave".
Bob tells us we should say "The photon behaves as a wave when constrained by certain instruments". This fixes the original sentence using additional content not required by e-prime.
"The photon behaves as a wave" seems a better translation to me.
You could also say: "The concept 'photon' belongs in the category of concepts we call 'waves'". Now we have used e-prime, but we haven't solved the problem with the original sentence.

[LMNO]

I take your point, but* "The photon behaves as a wave" is also not correct, because that implies the photon always behaves as a wave.  "The photon behaves as a wave when observed under certain conditions" is more correct, which brings us closer to RAWs usage.

The point of the RAW passage was to clarify the observational context in which the sentence was made.  You could also probably get away with "I observed the photon behaving as a wave", although strictly speaking** you aren't observing the photon, you're observing the results of your photon detector, which means you should be saying "I observed my instruments detecting wave-like behavior of the photon."  And then, if you really want the point to get beaten to death*** you can say, "I observed my wave-detecting instrument detecting wave-like behavior of the photon."

Of course, all of the above is probably only applicable to photons, because they're pretty fucked up things, Macro-istically speaking.


I think it's fairly well known that I use eprime (or some bastardization of it) quite often in my everyday posts.  Don't hate me because I'm a robot.







*Sorry for the upcoming pedantry.
**I know, I'm doing it again.
***You know, we really do need a :requia: emote.

[AFK]

Don't hate me because I'm a robot.

Sure, you come across as a robot as portrayed by this internet viewing device, or my viewing of the internet viewing device, but fuck you because I know you're a dragon!

[LMNO]

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

You may find this of use.

http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/george-orwells-5-rules-for-effective-writing/

#4 is a biggie. Noticed it myself before reading that. I'm not sure why it hits my writing so hard. Speaking in that manner is not a tendency with which I am associated. 

Yes, passive voice is sometimes necessary, but is incredibly disengaging when overused. That's one of the things I loathe most about e-prime; it relies heavily on passive voice.

Interesting.

I came to the opposite conclusion—that e-prime forces the active voice. It's the lazy version of e-prime that results in all these "seems to be" substitutions, when that was never the point. The trick to pulling off e-prime successfully has more to do with describing how two or more processes relate over time rather than sluggishly replacing natural incidences of "is" with "seems to be". It seems like a cop-out to avoid having to restructure your entire sentence, which requires a lot of time and creative effort and IMO results in 100% active voice.

My qualm with e-prime, oddly enough, was that it seemed to result in too many words. But never passive voice.

[El Sjaako]

I take your point, but* "The photon behaves as a wave" is also not correct, because that implies the photon always behaves as a wave.  "The photon behaves as a wave when observed under certain conditions" is more correct, which brings us closer to RAWs usage.

The point of the RAW passage was to clarify the observational context in which the sentence was made.  You could also probably get away with "I observed the photon behaving as a wave", although strictly speaking** you aren't observing the photon, you're observing the results of your photon detector, which means you should be saying "I observed my instruments detecting wave-like behavior of the photon."  And then, if you really want the point to get beaten to death*** you can say, "I observed my wave-detecting instrument detecting wave-like behavior of the photon."

Of course, all of the above is probably only applicable to photons, because they're pretty fucked up things, Macro-istically speaking.


I think it's fairly well known that I use eprime (or some bastardization of it) quite often in my everyday posts.  Don't hate me because I'm a robot.

*Sorry for the upcoming pedantry.
**I know, I'm doing it again.
***You know, we really do need a :requia: emote.

I agree with you here. That was actually my point, but it takes a lot of effort to make if you are trying to use e-prime, so I will stop doing that.

You can make correct statements using e-prime, you can make incorrect statements using e-prime, you can make correct statements in English, you can make incorrect statements in English.

So if we take the (incorrect, english) original statement "A photon is a wave", the direct translation "A photon behaves like a wave" is e-prime and incorrect.

RAW's translation "The photon behaves as a wave when constrained by certain instruments" is correct and e-prime, but it is not correct because it is e-prime. It is correct because of the qualifier.

And if we define wave as follows: "something that can be described by a wave equation" (not e-prime, and a definition, so independent of correct or incorrect) we can make a correct English statement:

"A photon is a wave when constrained by certain instruments"

No need to apologize for the pedantry, that's the whole point here.

E-prime is a useful teaching tool, as it can highlight the different usages of "is" and teach you when they are a problem. It's also important in teaching you how to read: often you should subsitute "is" with some form of "seems to the author". But I don't think it's useful for communication.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I take your point, but* "The photon behaves as a wave" is also not correct, because that implies the photon always behaves as a wave.  "The photon behaves as a wave when observed under certain conditions" is more correct, which brings us closer to RAWs usage.

The point of the RAW passage was to clarify the observational context in which the sentence was made.  You could also probably get away with "I observed the photon behaving as a wave", although strictly speaking** you aren't observing the photon, you're observing the results of your photon detector, which means you should be saying "I observed my instruments detecting wave-like behavior of the photon."  And then, if you really want the point to get beaten to death*** you can say, "I observed my wave-detecting instrument detecting wave-like behavior of the photon."

Of course, all of the above is probably only applicable to photons, because they're pretty fucked up things, Macro-istically speaking.


I think it's fairly well known that I use eprime (or some bastardization of it) quite often in my everyday posts.  Don't hate me because I'm a robot.

*Sorry for the upcoming pedantry.
**I know, I'm doing it again.
***You know, we really do need a :requia: emote.

I agree with you here. That was actually my point, but it takes a lot of effort to make if you are trying to use e-prime, so I will stop doing that.

You can make correct statements using e-prime, you can make incorrect statements using e-prime, you can make correct statements in English, you can make incorrect statements in English.

So if we take the (incorrect, english) original statement "A photon is a wave", the direct translation "A photon behaves like a wave" is e-prime and incorrect.

RAW's translation "The photon behaves as a wave when constrained by certain instruments" is correct and e-prime, but it is not correct because it is e-prime. It is correct because of the qualifier.

And if we define wave as follows: "something that can be described by a wave equation" (not e-prime, and a definition, so independent of correct or incorrect) we can make a correct English statement:

"A photon is a wave when constrained by certain instruments"

No need to apologize for the pedantry, that's the whole point here.

E-prime is a useful teaching tool, as it can highlight the different usages of "is" and teach you when they are a problem. It's also important in teaching you how to read: often you should subsitute "is" with some form of "seems to the author". But I don't think it's useful for communication.

That's RAW's take on it anyway. I could be wrong, but I think Korzybski intended more pervasive philosophical changes to the use of language than RAW really gets into.

[LMNO]

But I don't think it's useful for communication.

Sure it is (uh... can be).  It's just not a noble vanquisher of illusion.  It's merely a tool to be used with care when communicating.

And I've always felt that it's more than simple word substitution.  The underlying intent of eprime underscores the selective nature of perception, and tries to eschew over-generalized meta statements.  So once you understand the intent, you can construct your sentences to reflect that.

Where a lot of people seem to get it wrong is when they feel the need to use it when there's nothing really to clarify.  "The rose is red" is not eprime, but unless you're talking to someone from Alpha Centuri, people know what you're talking about.  To say "the rose appears to me as red when I look at the petals" makes people want to slap each other.

The place to use eprime is when you're trying to discuss or explain something that could either be easily misconstrued, or if it's unfamiliar territory for the audience.  It's absolutely necessary to include subjective context to the language in order to prevent misunderstanding.

[El Sjaako]

The underlying intent of eprime underscores the selective nature of perception, and tries to eschew over-generalized meta statements.  So once you understand the intent, you can construct your sentences to reflect that.

Where a lot of people seem to get it wrong is when they feel the need to use it when there's nothing really to clarify.  "The rose is red" is not eprime, but unless you're talking to someone from Alpha Centuri, people know what you're talking about.  To say "the rose appears to me as red when I look at the petals" makes people want to slap each other.

The place to use eprime is when you're trying to discuss or explain something that could either be easily misconstrued, or if it's unfamiliar territory for the audience.  It's absolutely necessary to include subjective context to the language in order to prevent misunderstanding.

I agree that if you get the intent of E-prime you can write about certain things more precisely and clearly. It's just that if you understand the intent of E-prime, you can use "is" without causing the problems E-prime tries to solve.

But I'm not really sure we're disagreeing about anything.

That's RAW's take on it anyway. I could be wrong, but I think Korzybski intended more pervasive philosophical changes to the use of language than RAW really gets into.

This whole discussion has reminded me about how interesting the whole subject is. Has anyone read any books on the subject besides quantum psychology? Were they any good?

[LMNO]

You could always get Korzybski's "Science and Sanity", if you feel like reading a doorstop.

RAW's "Prometheus Rising" and Leary's "Info-Psychology" also cover parts of this.