3 ms·

> …Be-verb Fallacy, a cultish linguistic theory and the bane of many a first-year composition student's life, alleging that an extraordinary degree of "clarity,

> …Be-verb Fallacy, a cultish linguistic theory and the bane of many a first-year composition student's life, alleging that an extraordinary degree of "clarity," "sanity," or textual "liveliness" can be reached by strictly eliminating all passive verb forms and all forms of the verb "to be" from English-language writing. This odd but unproven contention, dating back to Alfred Korzybski's "General Semantics" self-improvement movement of the 1920's and '30's via S. I. Hayakawa, blithely ignores the fact that although numerous major world languages lack a ubiquitous "be-verb," e.g., Russian, Hindi and Arabic, speakers of these languages, like English-speaking General Semantics devotees themselves, have never been proven to enjoy any particular cognitive advantage over ordinary everyday users of the passive voice and the verb "to be." Nor have writers of the curiously stilted English that results from applying this fallacy achieved any special success in academia, professional or technical writing, or in the popular domain. This isn’t a fallacy and I’m not sure the complaint other than this author doesn’t like it. It’s particularly hilarious that somehow the author thinks there should be research for an author to choose a writing style. And doesn’t cite any research showing supporting their own style decisions or rationale for clarity, tone, etc. I’m not familiar with whatever field would study success based on writing style, but E-Prime [0] has arguments for its use and someone choosing to follow it shouldn’t be criticized for choosing this method. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

BaronSamedi 5y ago
I agree with you. The idea that using e-prime makes one's writing more clear isn't a "fallacy". People might disagree but it's hardly fallacious. There are many items in this list that aren't fallacies (e.g., "Dog-Whistle Politics"). This list seems to be a mix of actual fallacies and "Things I don't like". If it is a fallacy we should be able to construct a simple argument from it. With the "Be-verb Fallacy" what would that be? Perhaps, "You used e-prime in your argument but all people who use e-prime are part of a cult, therefore you are part of a cult (and are wrong)." That's a fallacy all right just not the "Be-verb" one. I also found the definition of a fallacy at the start lacking. It conflates good argumentation with rhetorical technique. I prefer T. Edward Damer's definition from my old logic textbook: "A good argument must have premises that are true or acceptable, premises that are relevant to the truth of the conclusion, and premises that together constitute good or adequate grounds for the truth of the conclusion." Fallacious arguments violate one or more of these three principles.
SyzygistSix 5y ago
I think that using e-prime to write, think, and contextualize thoughts adds clarity for me. Most folks I know who are familiar with it are not absolutists about it. It's just a tool in the toolbox. Korzybski's work is very valuable in my opinion. It lets me think about things in a much less dogmatic and either/or way.
- prepend 5y ago
  I’m not terribly familiar but went through an e-prime phase back in college and still use it as a thinking tool. I was interested in criticism as I don’t like most formal language rulesets but this content didn’t really give any insight as to e-prime’s flaws. Other than the author doesn’t like it. I also find it useful as part of the “nonviolent communication” toolkit of trying to remove and work around ego as part of discussion and persuasion.

BaronSamedi 5y ago

I agree with you. The idea that using e-prime makes one's writing more clear isn't a "fallacy". People might disagree but it's hardly fallacious. There are many items in this list that aren't fallacies (e.g., "Dog-Whistle Politics"). This list seems to be a mix of actual fallacies and "Things I don't like". If it is a fallacy we should be able to construct a simple argument from it. With the "Be-verb Fallacy" what would that be? Perhaps, "You used e-prime in your argument but all people who use e-prime are part of a cult, therefore you are part of a cult (and are wrong)." That's a fallacy all right just not the "Be-verb" one. I also found the definition of a fallacy at the start lacking. It conflates good argumentation with rhetorical technique. I prefer T. Edward Damer's definition from my old logic textbook: "A good argument must have premises that are true or acceptable, premises that are relevant to the truth of the conclusion, and premises that together constitute good or adequate grounds for the truth of the conclusion." Fallacious arguments violate one or more of these three principles.

SyzygistSix 5y ago

I think that using e-prime to write, think, and contextualize thoughts adds clarity for me. Most folks I know who are familiar with it are not absolutists about it. It's just a tool in the toolbox. Korzybski's work is very valuable in my opinion. It lets me think about things in a much less dogmatic and either/or way.

prepend 5y ago
I’m not terribly familiar but went through an e-prime phase back in college and still use it as a thinking tool. I was interested in criticism as I don’t like most formal language rulesets but this content didn’t really give any insight as to e-prime’s flaws. Other than the author doesn’t like it. I also find it useful as part of the “nonviolent communication” toolkit of trying to remove and work around ego as part of discussion and persuasion.