E-Prime
This essay has a peculiar style. After this sentence, no form of the verb “to be” will be used, which is called using “E-Prime”. E-prime comes from “English Prime” which prohibits the use of the verb that signals identity and predication. This can create difficulties in expressing oneself simply. However, by omitting this verb, one can use more specific language in regards to subjective qualities.
As an example, let’s begin by talking about ‘goodness’. One could say “He __ not a good person”. However, E-prime forces the speaker to acknowledge the subjectivity, judgment and room for reinterpretation behind his/her statement because the sentence must change to something like “I don’t consider him a good person”, “He does not behave like a good person” or other possibilities of that sort. But there lies another effect that one does not notice as easily or immediately: by not considering someone a good person, does it necessarily entail considering them as a bad one?
What happens when someone doesn’t behave like a good person? Does one become a bad person simply by not acting like a good person? “No” reveals itself as the most intuitive answer. And precisely because of E-prime, one can focus on a) why someone doesn’t consider someone a good person, b) if in fact they consider them as a bad person or c) if they simply find no interest in developing a concrete opinion about the person. Either way, the absence of the verb of identity prevents the immediate identification of “he” as inherently identical to “bad person” simply because one doesn’t identify him as a good person. In short: this creates the categories of identity, lack of identity, and anti-identity.
Another interesting example occurs when evaluating truth. “Your opinion __ not correct/right”. Says who, “the truth”? Notice the fundamental impact that this use of language has on any potential argument that may arise. Who __ right? What __ the truth? One cannot even present the question because the use of E-prime prevents us from claiming to know/understand an objective “reality”. “I don’t think you __ right”... not even that works, so what option remains, “you don’t speak the truth”? Ah, well, let’s first establish what the truth says and then interpret what I mean before we pass judgment on who can discern the truth better, shall we?
The point… hmm, without those verbs I can’t even establish that an objective point does or may exist… let’s just agree that “I think, therefore I believe” and whatever I believe may or may not exist in your reality, but this doesn’t make one reality more or less “real” than another. Whatever you think the definition of “exist” means, perhaps Bill Clinton had a point when he said “it all depends on what your definition of __ __”.
