Talk:E-Prime

Self-e-primed

Please don't try to rewrite this article in e-prime. This will be invariably reverted, because this sub-language is not commonly accepted. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

i find this utterly sad... how little humour wikipedia have.

would it stay alive if done in the talk page? i wouldn't do it, anyway! 🤣 cregox (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

An important issue which is not really discussed directly

The article doesn't very directly confront the fact that linguistic scholars do not find E-Prime to be of much interest or usefulness (insofar as they've even heard of it). For academic linguists, E-Prime is another in a long line of ideas arrived at by non-linguists (Basic English is another) which does not have much validity from a linguistic point of view. Whoever the "scholars" mentioned in the third paragraph of the article are, it's a safe bet they are not reputable linguists... AnonMoos (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh? There an extensive section "Criticisms". I added this to the lede. (BTW, the references of kins "third paragraph" are not very good. For example, I've just moved the 3rd para out of the lede as an unnecessary detail.) Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"Some support it, some criticize it" is fine as far as it goes -- but as I said, it doesn't really address the fact that that E-prime is about language, while scholars in the field of the scientific study of language (linguistics) overwhelmingly do not find it of much interest or usefulness (insofar as they've even heard of it, which many wouldn't have, because it's so remote from what they're mainly concerned with in their day-to-day work). Robin Lakoff is a somewhat well-known linguist; I don't recognize the other names. It would be nice to have more material which is not sourced to General Semantics publications... AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

do you have any updates on this yourself, anon?

also, why do you give this "scholars grading" so much importance, anyway? i personally believe that pure logic beats scholarship any time, any where. 😁 cregox (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

i am depressed because

i wonder why the psychological effect compared 2 completely different things on that study.

"instead of saying i am depressed" differs a lot when replacing it for "i feel depressed when". unless we include "because" in there!

anyone knows why? cregox (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I mean that is kind of the point, to make a subtle change in the effect of the statement. Herostratus (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Explanation needing in asymmetrical relations

What is followint text supposed to mean: """To be statements convey not only identity but also asymmetrical relations ("X heights more than Y"); negation ("A differs from B"); location ("Another castle contains the princess"); auxiliary ("He goes to the store") etc., forms that would also have to be excluded.""" at #Criticisms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.165.130 (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

You would think if you were trying to explain functions of to be statements, you would actually use to be verbs. The made-up word would be another factor making it hard to understand. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence and E-Prime

I've noticed that AI models seem to prefer this restriction over the copula. That might warrant mention here. (I specifically avoided that verb while writing this, by the way. Gotta commit to the bit!) OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)