Take a look at the sentence you are reading right now. It seems standard enough. It conveys information. But if we were to adhere to a specific, rigorous linguistic constraint known as E-Prime, that first sentence would require surgery. Why? Because it contains the word “are.”
In the vast world of constructed languages and linguistic experiments, few concepts challenge our perception of reality quite like E-Prime (short for English Prime). Proposed in 1965 by D. David Bourland Jr., E-Prime consists of a simple yet excruciatingly difficult rule: You must banish every form of the verb “to be” from your vocabulary.
That means no is, serve, am, are, was, were, be, been, or being. It sounds like a quirky writing prompt or a classroom game, but the philosophy behind E-Prime runs much deeper. Its proponents argue that the verb “to be” acts as a structural flaw in the English language—a flaw that promotes dogmatism, obscures responsibility, and traps us in a static view of a changing world.
The Roots: General Semantics and the Map-Territory Relation
To understand why anyone would want to delete one of the most common verbs in existence, we have to look back to the early 20th century and a Polish-American engineer named Alfred Korzybski. Korzybski founded a discipline called General Semantics.
Korzybski famously declared, “The map is not the territory.” He meant that our language (the map) serves only as an abstraction of reality (the territory), not reality itself. When we confuse the word for the thing, we fall into cognitive traps.
While Korzybski didn’t propose the full removal of “to be”, he identified two specific usages of the verb as the primary culprits behind faulty logic and sanity issues:
- The “Is” of Identity: For example, “John is a thief.”
- The “Is” of Predication: For example, “The apple is red.”
David Bourland, a student of Korzybski, took this logic to its conclusion. If these forms of “to be” cause so much trouble, why not surgically remove them entirely? Thus, E-Prime was born as a tool to force the speaker to acknowledge the gap between their perception and reality.
The “Is” of Identity: Breaking the Aristotelian Box
The primary enemy of E-Prime lies in the “Is of Identity.” When you say, “Beethoven is a genius” or “That politician is a liar”, you effectively equate the person with the label. Mathematically, you are saying Person = Label.
This creates a static, unchangeable box. If John “is” a failure, he possesses “failure” as an inherent, permanent trait. It leaves no room for change, context, or redemption. It suggests that “failure” constitutes the totality of John’s existence.
In E-Prime, you must rephrase:
- Standard English: “John is a failure.”
- E-Prime: “John failed his chemistry exam”, or “John has not achieved his goals yet.”
Notice the shift? The E-Prime versions describe actions or spatiotemporal states. Actions can change. A person who “failed” a test can “pass” the next one. But a person who “is a failure” seems doomed. By removing “to be”, we move from a language of permanent essence to a language of dynamic process.
The “Is” of Predication: Who Owns the Opinion?
The second villain, the “Is of Predication”, projects a quality onto an object as if that quality exists inside the object, rather than in the observer’s mind.
Consider the sentence: “This movie is boring.”
Grammatically, this sentence states “boringness” as an objective fact about the movie, much like its runtime or the director’s name. It sounds like a divine decree. If you disagree, you aren’t just having a different experience; you are factually wrong because the movie is boring.
E-Prime forces the speaker to reclaim their subjectivity. You cannot say the movie “is” boring, because “boring” describes your reaction, not the film stock.
In E-Prime, you rewrite it as:
- “The movie bores me.”
- “I felt bored watching this movie.”
- “I did not enjoy the plot.”
This subtle shift has a massive impact on discourse. It reduces conflict. It turns a dogmatic assertion (“You are wrong, the movie is bad!”) into a sharing of perspectives (“The movie bored me, but it seems to excite you”). It inherently creates space for other viewpoints.
E-Prime in Action: A Transformation Table
To see how this changes the “flavor” of writing, let’s look at how translating common phrases into E-Prime alters their meaning and tone.
| Standard English | E-Prime Translation | The Effect |
|---|---|---|
| “The internet is a distraction.” | “The internet distracts me.” | Takes ownership; admits the internet might not distract others. |
| “It is a mistake.” | “I made a mistake.” | Allocates responsibility directly rather than using the passive “It.” |
| “She is happy.” | “She looks happy” or “She smiles.” | Acknowledges that we can only observe behavior, not internal states. |
| “Boys are aggressive.” | “Some boys act aggressively in certain situations.” | Removes the stereotype and specifies context. |
The Benefits: Why Try It?
Writers and thinkers who experiment with E-Prime often report a heightened sense of clarity. Robert Anton Wilson, the famous author and futurist, championed E-Prime as a way to “sanitize” one’s thinking.
1. It reveals hidden assumptions.
When you can’t say “That idea is stupid”, you have to articulate why you dislike the idea. You might realize, “I don’t understand that idea”, which represents a very different problem.
2. It invigorates writing.
Forms of “to be” often lead to passive voice. “The decision was made” (Standard) hides the actor. ” The committee decided” (E-Prime) reveals the actor. E-Prime naturally pushes writers toward active verbs, making prose punchier and more direct.
3. It fosters scientific humility.
In science, nothing “is” absolutely true; we only have current theories that fit the data. E-Prime mirrors the scientific method. Instead of saying “Electrons are particles”, a physicist using E-Prime logic might say, “Electrons behave like particles under these conditions.”
The Critique: Is It Worth the Effort?
Despite its philosophical allure, E-Prime has not taken over the linguistics world, and for good reason. It requires immense cognitive load. Speaking standard English flows naturally; speaking E-Prime feels like maneuvering through a minefield.
Furthermore, critics argue that E-Prime can become cumbersome. Sometimes, “The sky is blue” serves as a perfectly adequate shorthand for “The atmosphere scatters light in such a way that I perceive a blue hue.” Removing “to be” can sometimes lead to convoluted sentence structures that obscure meaning rather than clarify it.
There is also the argument that changing language doesn’t necessarily change thought. A person can still be dogmatic without using the verb “to be.” One could say, “I know for a fact that John steals”, which carries the same weight as “John is a thief.” E-Prime removes the mechanism of the identity trap, but the speaker must still possess the intent to think critically.
Conclusion: A Tool for Thought
You don’t need to convert to E-Prime explicitly to benefit from its lessons. Even if you continue to use “is” and “are”, simply noticing how often you use them can act as a powerful exercise in mindfulness.
The next time you find yourself writing an angry email or making a sweeping statement about politics or a friend, pause. Look for the “to be” verbs. Ask yourself: Am I describing reality, or am I projecting my internal map onto the territory?
To finish this exploration, I will construct this final paragraph strictly in E-Prime. This linguistic constraint forces us to look closer at how we construct our world. It demands that we take responsibility for our observations. By removing the static “is”, we breathe life and motion back into our sentences. We stop acting as judges of the universe and start acting as participants within it. Language shapes thought, and perhaps by changing our words, we can change our minds.