For today, I’ve decided to discuss E-Prime, a language created by D. David Bourland Jr.

Proponents of E-Prime maintain that the English verb ‘to be’ in all of its forms has no place in discourse. Thus, words like “be, being, been, am, is, isn’t, are, aren’t, was, wasn’t, were, weren’t” are strictly forbidden. However, no ban has been placed on words like “has, become, will, would, do, shall, ought”. Two wonderful poems have been placed on the Wikipedia site, one in E-Prime, and one in Conventional English.

Conventional English
Roses are red;
Violets are blue.
Honey is sweet,
And so are you.

E-Prime
Roses seem red;
Violets seem blue.
Honey pleases me,
And so do you.

E-Prime’s creator felt that these rules “reduce the possibility for misunderstanding and for conflict”. The reasoning for this seems firmly rooted in the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, as they argue that the use of ‘to be’ can create false security in characteristics (when we say “the coat is red”, we only know that “the coat looks red to me”). They also seem to feel that the elimination of ‘to be’ leads to a language based less on an objective view of reality. Thus, eliminating statements of reality which include no epistemic information (information about how we know what we know) forces us to concentrate on the subjective nature of our interpretations. By adopting this language change, the creators of e-prime seem to feel that our perceptions would gradually shift as well, and eventually, so might our thoughts.

My primary skepticism involves the benefits of adopting such a change. Even if the elimination of ‘to be’ in written and spoken discourse could actually affect our perceptions of the world, I wonder whether the resulting change would really reduce the possibility for conflict and misunderstanding. Sure, false objectivity and lack of epistemic information in language could disappear (at least partially), but I question whether the awkwardness caused by eliminating ‘to be’ might outweigh the benefits and create additional sources of confusion. However, the awkwardness would vary from person to person. I composed this entire post in a basic form of E-Prime (excepting examples), and I did not find it overwhelmingly difficult, but I also cannot imagine it working well in spoken discouse.

E-prime seems quite innovative to me, and although I cannot see it catching on in everyday use, the mere idea provides a great example of thinking outside of the linguistic box in language creation/expansion. It seems like a good step towards precision language, and the idea of eliminating words for higher precision fascinates me. Thus, like many created languages, E-Prime seems destined to a gradual journey down the river to obscurity. However, like all created languages, it offers a new perspective and a new way to view the world.

I’ll end with a great quote from one of the E-Prime sites:

“You don’t need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds.”

“Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it”

I’d mentioned High Precision Language in a previous post, and I think it’s time to give it a little more consideration.

Human language is quite often ambiguous, especially outside of context. Take, for instance, the following wonderful examples of ambiguity at its best:

“Police help dog bite victim”

“Have you seen the Queen of England’s hat?”

This ambiguity is seldom a problem, especially in a conversational situation where the participants can either infer (”Oh, Jane was talking about getting bitten by a dog the other day”) or ask for a clarification. Worst comes to worst, there is a misunderstanding and some communicative catastrophy occurs.

Trouble on the Path to Precision

There are some areas where ambiguity becomes far more problematic.

One such area is that of computers. As my computational linguistics professor says, “Computers are stupid. They’ll do exactly what you tell them to.” Computers lack the ability to infer, or to ask for clarification, so if you hand a computer an ambiguous command, it will likely hand you an error in return. To conquer this, we have created a great variety of computer languages (like C, Python, Perl, etc.), all designed to prevent as much ambiguity as possible and offer the computer a command that can only be read in one way.

However, I believe that there are some human realms that are more susceptible to troubles from the ambiguity.

Whether or not language is the basis for human thought (a highly contentious idea, see the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis), we do a great deal of subvocalization (talking to ourselves, silently) when thinking or working through difficult problems. Language is a good means of communication with ourselves, as well as with others, and when spelling out one’s thoughts, precision is very helpful.

In the legal world, hours upon hours are spent on each document, finding and removing (or exploiting) ambiguity in laws, contracts, evidence, and other such documents. Precise language could quickly eliminate loopholes, shorten text, and ideally make “legalese” obsolete.

In the realm of religion and spirituality, there are many examples of ritualized speech, where precision can be very important. In religious texts (and their translations), ambiguity can cause massive difficulties. As any lawyer can tell you, a single changed word can change the meaning of a text immensely. So, when a person is using a book to develop his or her spirituality, ambiguity can put them in a very difficult position. To avoid this, some religions (such as Islam) have decreed an official language to avoid such troubles in translation. In Islam, the Koran (or Qu’ran) cannot be “translated” from its native Arabic, but rather it is “interpreted” into other languages. These interpretations are not considered valid for any serious religious discussion, and most scholars of Islam are able to read, recite, and explain the Koran in Arabic. (Referencing the Wikipedia Article on the Qu’ran). However, a potent, easy-to-use, and ambiguity free language would be very handy for translation, and for the creation of any texts which may become important to future generations.

However, even in one’s personal worship or rituals, ambiguity in language can be seen to raise difficulties. In Paganism, Wicca, and other spiritual systems involving spellcraft or invocations, words are frequently used in Spells or Rituals as a method of establishing or guiding intent. In these situations, it’s vital to “be careful what you wish for”, because, if the spell is successful, practitioners believe that you just might get it. So, if your language is ambiguous, there’s a chance that your intent might be as well, and that could quickly lead to great difficulties. I suspect that with a High Precision Language, crafting the language for rituals would become a meditation and ritual in-and-of itself, and might well lead to better creation of intent in the long run.

Similarly, in some cultures involving planned ceremonies, the use, delivery, and intent of each word is vital, and some cultures believe that if a single word is misplaced or mis-spoken, the entire ceremony may fail. In these cultures, precision in speech and language is necessary, and ambiguity might be seen as a way to break a perfectly good ceremony. (This example stems from knowledge gained from a class on Native American Culture, but I’m unable to remember the specific tribe or ritual to cite. Assistance or corrections are appreciated.)

So what is High Precision Language?

Well, truthfully, I’m not sure yet. Whether it be an expansion to existing language, a language all its own, or a fool’s pipe-dream, High Precision Language is language easy enough for human use, but precise enough for computers, rituals and lawyers. Although it would undoubtedly be difficult to create, find, or discover, I think that the benefits in situations like those above would be a boon to humanity in a variety of contexts.

The potential of these benefits are what keep me searching for such an obscure concept, and hoping to make progress on what some might consider a fool’s journey.

As any good writing professor will tell you, cliché quickly kills meaning. People are exceptionally good at pattern recognition, so when a set phrase or cliché appears in conversation or text, we’re quite quick to spot it. As soon as we’ve spotted it, we begin cross-referencing it and comparing it to other past experiences, phrases, or communications. Thus, your words are thrown to the side, and a bevy of baggage is hauled into your conversation. Take, for instance, the following statement:

John was burning rubber in front of his house on the parched desert flats when he noticed the approaching truck.

When reading that sentence, I suspect that very few people would instinctively imagine that he was in fact burning rubber (placing it in a barrel and setting it ablaze), instead assuming the clichéd meaning of “driving quickly”. Here, there’s enough ambiguity to allow two completely different situations to be described, but even in less ambiguous situations, cliché can still affect (or taint) the meaning of one’s words.

Every time a cliché is used, it is stamped with another experience. Just think of all the things in your life that have “shot off like a rocket”: maybe a stock, a car, maybe even a person fleeing danger? So, therefore, every time that a cliché is invoked, each past experience of the listener with the idea is pulled into it, however subtly. So, really, a cliché is more than the sum of its parts. A few seemingly harmless words, when united, can quickly turn into an amorphous beast, both relevant and out-of-place in any conversation.

It’s also worth considering the idea of cliché in computer languages. If you always use one particular chunk of code when doing X, perhaps you’re missing out on an opportunity for more precision or improvement. Mixing it up a little couldn’t hurt, where possible.

So, when you use a cliché, no matter what you intended to express, the sum of the listener’s past experiences have just been placed in your mouth. Your entire communication just got tainted, all because of one little phrase.

Should we attempt to crush Cliché?

Well, that’s a tough question. There’s nothing inherently wrong with cliché. It seems to be built in to our use of language, and there are times when any cliché is actually appropriate. I’m sure that I’ve unintentionally snuck a few clichés into this very post. Although it might eventually be for the best to cease cliché altogether, that’s far easier said than done.
However, if you’re concerned with the idea of high precision language (like I am), then cliché starts to take on a more dangerous aspect. In addition to pulling in unnecessary baggage, there’s the temptation to use a common cliché where a more unique phrase would be more powerful.

Alright, then how?

Well, that’s the trick. Anything can be overused, and the temptation is always there due to the inherent human lazyness in language selection. Perhaps the only way to completely eliminate cliché would be to categorically forbid the reuse of phrases. This would be difficult, because, well, some words are meant to be together, in the most cliché of senses (not to mention that the cliché police would inevitably face a rather cold reception, no matter their form.)

If one wants to eliminate cliché in a new language, another possibility is to create an easy, accessible system of word and meaning creation. This, too, is FAR easier said than done, but if accurate language is constructed easily enough, there’s no need to use inaccurate language.

Cliché is here to stay

So, really, there is no quick and easy way to eliminate cliché. It’s as much a part of current languages as anything else. Until the Cliché Police arrive or a better way of forming words comes along, the best we can do is exercise a little self control and try and pick the most accurate word, rather than the easiest.

Note: I’ll likely end up discussing “High Precision Language” and the idea of language creation to the point of absurdity later down the road. Sorry to leave people hanging!