How to Write Quotations in English Prime

May 17, 2006 at 2:55 pm · Filed under Quotes for Thought

Take one English-Standard quotation:

"Friendship without self-interest is one of the rare and beautiful things of life." — James F. Byrnes

Convert it into English-Prime:

  1. Identify any 'to be' verbs. In this case: 'is', also known in maths as '='.
  2. Realise the speaker's inherent dogmatism or absolutism, intentioned or not.
  3. Undelete the 'point of view' of the speaker with a line such as, "according to <speaker>" to reference their opinion as relative.
  4. Use a phrase to replace 'to be' with an active verb such as 'appears', 'seems', 'shows charateristics of' etc.

End result:

Friendship without self-interest, according to James F. Byrnes, appears to resemble one of the rare and beautiful things of life.

A relatively non-dogmatic statement i.e. one which encourages free thought and open-debate which you can use in your essays, articles, reports, dissertations etc.

♦

Let's say we had to research and write about a topic like friendship. The following excerpt I have written used E-Prime rules to show how I can have the opinions of another relatively integrated with my own:

Friends, in Emily Dickinson's perception, portray as her "estate". I agree to the extent that your friends can resemble valued possessions except you don't actually own them no more then they might own you.

Where Aristotle onced alleged that without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all the other goods I would agree in relation to Seal who once sang and inferred that loneliness resembles the social "killer" which corresponds with "high extroversion" in my view.

In essence, each 'point of view' presents relative to the other and as a whole we could, by popular vote, call these collections of opinions a doctrine. This would apply in general to incorporating different philosophies, systems, theories, opinions etc. into a new singular field hence the cliché that nothing seems truly original (at least in E-Prime rules).

Comments (1)

From Insanity to Sanity in 5 Minutes

April 29, 2006 at 12:17 am · Filed under Action

I stumbled upon the following quote which said "instant insanity" to me. What do you think?

"Better a Has-been than a Never-was. But better a Never-was than a Never-tried-to-be." ~unknown

The latter part seems especially confusing to me and paradoxical. Let's see if I can make any sense out of it with a personalised e-primed interpretation…

It would seem to me that failing to try to do something appoximates worse then simply not trying to do at all. Though all things considered it may seem better to have never acted then to have ventured into something with all that may go with it.

The overall message in a nutshell would appear to me that a person should act with diligence to minimize a small demon called 'risk'. It now comes across to me that the quote author abstractively rationalized the inhererent laziness that can go with making things happen.

Eh Voila!

Comments (7)

Standard English: What Seems *To Be* The Problem?

April 25, 2006 at 1:21 pm · Filed under General Semantics

How are you? Why are you? When are you?
Where are you? What are you? Who are you?

Common questions which in my view evoke passive answers that would seem disassociated with reality.

To quote the 'to be' verb directly from answers.com (with my basic concerns highlighted in red):

be (bē)

v., First and third person singular past indicative was (wŭz, wŏz; wəz when unstressed), second person singular and plural and first and third person plural past indicative were (wûr), past subjunctive were, past participle been (bĭn), present participle be·ing (bē'ĭng), first person singular present indicative am (ăm), second person singular and plural and first and third person plural present indicative are (är), third person singular present indicative is (ĭz), present subjunctive be.

v. intr.

  1. To exist in actuality; have life or reality: I think, therefore I am.
    1. To occupy a specified position: The food is on the table.
    2. To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched, or unmolested: Let the children be.
  2. To take place; occur: The test was yesterday.
  3. To go or come: Have you ever been to Italy? Have you been home recently?
  4. Used as a copula in such senses as:
    1. To equal in identity: “To be a Christian was to be a Roman” (James Bryce).
    2. To have a specified significance: A is excellent, C is passing. Let n be the unknown quantity.
    3. To belong to a specified class or group: The human being is a primate.
    4. To have or show a specified quality or characteristic: She is witty. All humans are mortal.
    5. To seem to consist or be made of: The yard is all snow. He is all bluff and no bite.
  5. To belong; befall: Peace be unto you. Woe is me

v. aux.

  1. Used with the past participle of a transitive verb to form the passive voice: The mayoral election is held annually.
  2. Used with the present participle of a verb to express a continuing action: We are working to improve housing conditions.
  3. Used with the infinitive of a verb to express intention, obligation, or future action: She was to call before she left. You are to make the necessary changes.
  4. Archaic. Used with the past participle of certain intransitive verbs to form the perfect tense: “Where be those roses gone which sweetened so our eyes?” (Philip Sidney).

Let us now review my concerns…

  1. "To remain in a certain state" enforces the notion to me of absolutism and seems to dismiss a concept raised in General Semantics known as Time-Binding. In essence, me-today does not equate to me-yesterday unless I remained in a constant state of (passive) being having never (actively) DONE anything even remotely progressive in my existence.
  2. "To take place; occur" enforces to me the notion that while something may have already occurred i.e. in the past, due to the passive usage of 'to be' we may harper on it as absolute and not relative to "now". For example, the way something was doesn't equate to what something can become "now" or "later" regardless of what it was "then"!
  3. "To equal in identity" enforces to me the notion of immediate controversy between any identity other than your own with perhaps a mental-blocking (passive) thought like "I want to be like you for you are my idol!" rather then the (active) thought that "I want to do the things you do or have done to mimic your behaviour, success etc. as my own".
  4. "To have a specified significance" enforces to me the pseudo-importance of a pseudo-question such as Who are you? which would always seem to concern itself with the past, the present and the future concurrently.
  5. "To belong to a specified class or group" enforces the notion to me of one person being right say by popular opinion thus making all other opinions wrong and controversial or to quote from the film The Highlander, "there can be only one" just before a fellow immortal has his head chopped off.
  6. "To have or show a specified quality or characteristic" enforces the notion to me of "definiteness-of-character" which in my experience seems like a great trap for people who get obsessed by what others say about them and develop emotional problems as a result including mental blocks towards change.

In conclusion, the 'to be' verb would seem to me to distort the mind as a passive verb. On the other hand, English Prime enforces active verb usage. In effect, so that we may leave a passive state of being and enter an active state of DOING.

It would seem to me that conditioned states of being begin in childhood perhaps due to a ubiquitous pseudo-question that children usually get asked – What do you want to be when you grow up?

Thus in my view where be encourages a narrow-focused existence and DO encourages a wider-scoped existence without the pressures of being anything specific.

Comments (13)

Older Posts »