Comments on: Sharpen Your Critical Thinking With E-Prime

By: Twitter Trackbacks for Sharpen Your Critical Thinking With E-Prime [litemind.com] on Topsy.com

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:25:41 +0000

[...] Sharpen Your Critical Thinking With E-Prime litemind.com/e-prime – view page – cached For decades critical thinkers use E-Prime as a tool to write, speak and think more clearly and accurately. Learn how you can use it to sharpen your critical thinking abilities, avoid mental traps and — From the page [...]

By: Amit Sodha

Amit Sodha — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:06:39 +0000

Wow this concept is totally new to me! I’ve never even come across
the term e-prime before but I will certainly going to give it a go!

Thanks Luciano!

(I think that was e-primed!)

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:47:17 +0000

David,

Thank you for the time you’ve already donated. If you could spare just a little more time, please answer the following three questions, stated with just a little introduction.

1. In English, to express one’s existence, we can say either “I am” or “I exist”. Are there similarly two (confusing!) ways to express existence in Hebrew?

2. In English, to express equality (or identity), we can either use the verb “to be” and say (e.g.) “I am as tall as he is” or avoid “to be” and say something similar to “We have equivalent heights”. Are there similarly two options in Hebrew?

3. In English, to describe an attribute (predication), we can either use the verb “to be” and say (e.g.) “You are handsome” or avoid “to be” and say something similar to “You have handsome features”. Are there similarly two options in Hebrew?

By the way, if David is too busy to respond and if anyone else knows the answer to those questions, please respond. In addition, if someone knows an oriental language (such as Chinese, Japanese,…), I’d be grateful if you’d provide similar information. Asked differently, the question is: is it only the languages derived from Latin that are so screwed up (”a genuine tragedy of the race”)?

By: David Shaffer

David Shaffer — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:23:24 +0000

“Hayiti” means “I was”; “haya” means “he (or it) was…” The “Ha” here is not the definite article prefix – it’s part of the radical, the root of the verb (typically a Hebrew verb root consists of three consonants, but there are countless exceptions), “iti” being an inflection, a suffix, if you like, indicating first person singular past: “ra’iti, for instance, means “I saw” or “I was seeing” – there’s essentially only one past tense in Hebrew. The verbs conjugate without auxilliaries – the future is expressed with prefixes, the past with suffixes, and the vowels seem to change with infuriating irregularity, thus: “ani” (I) “rakaditi” (danced); “ani roked” (I danced); “ani erkod” (”I shall dance”).
“Ani moreh” means “I am a teacher” – no verb “to be” – just a pronoun and a noun. “Hayiti moreh” means “I was/have been a teacher…” “Ani ayef” means “I am tired” – pronoun and adjective….

I’m really not an expert. The examples I’ve given were just random, and there are obviously subtleties like the passive and the reflexive. Sorry I don’t have time or expertise to tell more.

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:53:37 +0000

David.

Thank you, but…!
1. I don’t see how you used “lihyot” in your examples – or is “yiti” a past tense of “lihyot”?
2. Does “lihyot” have four different meanings as does “to be” (i.e, for existence, identity, predication, and as an auxiliary verb)?

By: David Shaffer

David Shaffer — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:31:52 +0000

Although Hebrew does have a verb “lihyot” (to be), if you want to say, for instance, “The book is big,” you’d say “HaSefer godol” – literally, “The book big.” The noun “sefer” is prefixed with the definite article “ha”; the adjective “godol” is uninflected. “Sefer godol” means “a big book”; “hasefer hagodol” means “the big book.” Generally tenses are expressed by inflecting verbs, but if you want to say, “I was there,” you’d use “hayiti” – “I was.”

By: Luciano Passuello

Luciano Passuello — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:55:39 +0000

I don’t know about Hebrew or any oriental language. In Portuguese (which is my native language), two verbs encompass the meaning of the English ‘to be’:
1. The verb ’ser’, which acts as a “time-unbound” version, like “I am human” (have always been and will continue to be);
2. The verb ‘estar’, which acts as a “time-bound” version, like “I am hungry” (now).

Having said that, this distinction doesn’t help much clearing the confusion.
I am also still interested in hearing more from speakers of other languages!

By: Nick

Nick — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:47:10 +0000

A great post! Having examined some of the logical fallacies arising from misuse of the verb “to be” (e.g., God is love; love exists; therefore, God exists), I found perceptive the following quotation from the 1933 book by Alfred Korzybski entitled “An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics”:

“The verb “to be” has at least four entirely different uses: 1) as an auxiliary verb, “Smith is coming”, 2) as the ‘is’ of predication, “the apple is red”, 3) as the ‘is’ of “existence”, “I am”, and 4) as the ‘is’ of identify, “the apple is a fruit”. The fact that four semantically entirely different words should have one sound and spelling appears as a genuine tragedy of the race…”

I’ve heard that the Hebrew language and at least one oriental language don’t possess a similar “tragedy”. Does anyone know for sure?

By: Keeping My Hat On » Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-06-07

Keeping My Hat On » Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-06-07 — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 07:57:54 +0000

[...] http://litemind.com/e-prime/ # [...]

By: Mark Forster

Mark Forster — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:11:15 +0000

Doug:

I don’t really understand the purpose of your comment. “Please get me the red shirt” obeys the e-prime rules. But neither “I want the shirt that you think is red” nor “I want the shirt that you think that I will think is red” make e-prime sentences, so why would promoters of e-prime think them better logically or linguistically?