i totally concur that the whedonverse writers could turn a phrase. and i loved where the definition of demon kept heading: that demons are people too, just with a much older pedigree.
joss did some nice phrase-turning with firefly, too, in his âchina will be the next superpower, so my characters will cuss in chineseâ dialogue.
in fierfly and serenity, âshinyâ was the slang for âgoodâ. probably not wild enough for what youâre looking for, though, penny. but in terms of the way i hope that the plants will swallow up the artifacts of civilization after the crash, maybe âleafyâ will be the new slang for âgoodâ or âcoolâ.
I just wanted to give yâall a heads up to another great book on a rewilding of language. This may surprise you, but âNonviolent Communicationâ (also known as âcompassionate communicationâ), by Marshall Rosenberg, has some amazing things to say about thinking and speaking in terms of what you observe and experience, rather than outmoded paradigms of âshouldsâ and âoughtsâ. In fact he starts out the book describing the ways of modern languages as languages of enslavement, a linguistic tradition originating with the birth of civilization and âpower-overâ (as opposed to âpower-withâ).
In fact that book has directly inspired a lot of my writing and paradigm shifts, which I express in terms of the Empathic Way, and itâs sequel.
Yeah, I like that word too. Another one that doesnât even get that much use is âfatheringâ, which is a shame cause I think that would prolly help with the absent father situation we have in this countryâŚ
ErrâŚhazelnut is Corylus americana and our computer woman back in the office was named CoryâŚso if she didnât come into work we would be Cory-less. Thatâs a particularly bad one, but for some reason the only one I can remember.
âErrâŚhazelnut is Corylus americana and our computer woman back in the office was named CoryâŚso if she didnât come into work we would be Cory-less. Thatâs a particularly bad one, but for some reason the only one I can remember.â
The above in E-prime/primitive:
ErrâŚhazelnut also goes by the name Corylus americana and our computer women back in the office we call, CoryâŚso if she didnât come into work weâd go âCorylessâ. Bad example, but for some reason the only one I can remember ;).
I havenât switched to e-prime myself but I think the difference is most apparent when you are arguing with someone! Itâs different for someone to say you are lazy than for them to say you acted lazy today. Of course you could say you are acting lazy which means the same thing as the second but has to be of the first so maybe it doesnât matterâŚbut then Iâd say there are other aspects to e-primtive such as making up names for places based on wild characteristics. Beaver valley rather than Thompsonâs valley or whatever. If you say go to beaver valley and then follow hemlock stream uphill. The person will see the tree stumps and know they are there whereas Mr. Thompson is some 17th century settler long gone and it doesnât mean anything. Or maybe Iâm just making stuff up!
I wish I could just âswitchâ to E-primitive/prime just like that but I donâ think it âisâ that easy. I mean (E-primitively speaking): I want to get more used to speaking in E-prime for various reasons and I donât feel that I can just âswitchâ it on or off or just switch fully over to it or with it (similar to what Willem just said) instantly. It take practice for a lot of us, me too. I just got into and started liking the sound of it and decided that Iâd rather use it, yeah and slipping, everybody slips. Sometimes I even like toâŚslip.
It also helps to have people all around the place that use it (so offline, online, neighbors, friends, family, and so on) to receive a more natural feel and experience by growing up around it with other people that do it too.
In our Be-English mindset, we have a hard time understanding the difference between âI am sickâ and âI feel sickâ. Both express the same underlying concept, but they approach it from different mindsets. The latter tells the listener directly how you feel. The former implies how you feel by redefining yourself as the feeling.
The main problem e-primers tend to have with the verb âto beâ lies in the way it redefines things and limits their existence.
At work, I analyze databases. To say I âamâ a database analyst reduces me to one thing that I only happen to do for 40 hours (usually less) each week. It denies the other aspects of my life: the raising of my child, the love I have for plants, etc. By saying I âamâ one thing and presenting myself to you with that definition of myself, I linguistically exclude the rest of my existence.
I think the âutilityâ of e-prime comes from waking up our minds to another way in which civilization lies to us. Granted, when we say âheâs a teacher; sheâs a biologist; they are good people; we are Americans,â we donât internally believe they have no other facets to their lives, but in the act of saying someone âisâ one thing, we deny all the other possibilities. However, when we say âhe teaches; she studies life; they treat others well; we live in a place the inhabitants refer to as America,â we still focus on only one facet, but we donât deny the existence of the other facets in doing so.
Think about how we get to know a new person, about the questions we usually ask: âHow old is he? What does he do for a living? Where is he from?â Our civilized minds want to reduce people to a handy set of concepts, to have a rigid framework in which to fit the person so that we know just what to expect from them. Because âa 34 year old, database analyst from Arkansasâ tells a civilized person exactly what they need to know about me. Once they have these minute details about my life, they can pigeonhole me and encapsulate my life into a manageable piece of data. Moreover, they no longer have to worry about getting to really know meâuntil I start acting outside of their framework. Once I do something outside of the expected bounds for a â34 year old database analyst from Arkansasâ I âbecomeâ something differentâto that person. But in reality I âwasâ the âsomething differentâ all along.
I think that feral life (whether in terms of tracking animals and plants, judging the portents of the sky, listening to the hunting stories of our fellow tribalists) stands on unsure footing. Nothing in the feral world ever âisâ just one thing. Knowing that, keeping the mind open, keeping the senses open, gives the feral man the tools he needs to constantly interact with the changing world.
When I stop asking myself âwhat is thisâ and start trying to more directly describe the facets of whatever lies before me, I realize that the thing I study with my senses can âbeâ many thingsâall at onceâand that I need to attune my senses to all of those things. Moreover, I open myself up to the possibility for this thing in front of me to âbeâ something I canât yet sense at all.
A very fascinating read is an article in the April 16th issue of The New Yorker, The Interpreter: The puzzling language of an Amazon tribe. It discusses a challenge to Noam Chomsky's universal constant of recursive grammar (...an evolutionary adaptation that allowed us to juggle syntax and place one sentence within another to exponentially allow refinement in description, meaning and reason). So "unique" is this tribe's vocabulary and cultural outlook that fundamental reasoning skills and language structure taken for granted elsewhere falter sharply in this setting.
This might be (does might be count?) some interesting stuff. I think I maybe sorta redefined BE a long long time ago to always have a mental modifier identifying the might aspect.
Might is seemingly quite important.
For instance, I am saying I am X and Y but not Z, never Z, and undoubtably a sprinkle of Q on alternate Tuesdays, however, beneathe all that I believe I AM nothing aside from human, alive and mutable.
It all started when I read this axiom coined by the author Theodore Sturgeon, an author responsible for some really badass speculative fiction stories and progenitor of the phrase âLive Long and Prosperâ, which is what I first thought of when I saw that Long Life Honey in the Heart book.
Anyway, some have written Sturgeonâs Law utilizing the following string of characters : âNothing is always absolutely so.â
After seeing this and after much pondering and pontificating and boring all my poor buddies I decided to tweak my individual conception of âto beâ, and suddenly, in my eyes, it isnât so bad. I donât really want to go through the curbing and the trimming and deracinating and constantly paying of attention neccessary to extricate it completely out of my lexicon.
Is is there and is could be staying till the day I abandon english.
I think I maybe sorta redefined BE a long long time ago to always have a mental modifier identifying the might aspect.
I love this. This represents to me (almost) the whole point of e-prime. Yes, Iâd love to see english change into a language that overtly encourages wise, clear, thinking, but I donât know what the future will bring. I myself rarely speak in e-prime, though I write in it 100%.
So I mainly hope for e-prime to encourage that kind wise thinking-behind-the-words, if not a change in the words themselves.
For me, I find myself all-too-malleable when it comes to english affecting the way I think.
For science fiction/philosophy fans, I recommend checking out Robert Anton Wilsonâs many books, including Quantum Psychology, for a peak at another way of looking at e-prime and the tinkering with oneâs awareness.
Uncover blind spots! Tom Brown calls it âdead spaceâ, and addresses his âdead spacesâ (the places where, if he didnât stop to wonder about it, he would never look or think about) with a religious zeal.
This seems to me to embody the crux of e-prime. Things flux and change. Indigenous language speakers donât have to relearn this concept because they never starting thinking of things as unchanging in the first place.
Willem,
Reading that you mostly use âto-beâ when not writing means a lot to me in a good way. Thanks for your insight. Reminds me of myself using it. Personally, I write in it 99% nowadays now that rewild.info has grabbed my attention and showed me E-prime and E-aboriginal. By â99%â I only mean this that I think I may sometimes mistakingly add a few hidden âto-beâ in my writing, but, as far as I can see, most of it looks how I want it, without âto-beâ. If anyone notices in my writing a hidden âto-beâ or âto-beâ feel free to tell me, I want to hear it pointed out.
Wildirix,
Thank you for the reminder. I feel very inspired by your feelings and the wisdom you just shared! [to self got to remember that]