Editing E-Prime (section)

==Criticisms==
Many authors have questioned E-Prime's effectiveness at improving readability and reducing [[prejudice]] (Lakoff, 1992; Murphy, 1992; Parkinson, 1992; Kenyon, 1992; French, 1992, 1993; Lohrey, 1993<!-- which authors questions which points? -->). These authors <!-- all of them? -->observed that communication under the copula ban can remain obscure and imply prejudice, while losing important [[speech pattern]]s, such as identities and identification. Further, prejudices and judgments may become more difficult to notice or refute.

Various arguments against E-Prime (in the context of general semantics) have been conjectured:<ref>Compare:
{{cite journal |last=French |first=James D |year=1992 |title=The Top Ten Arguments Against E-Prime |journal=ETC: A Review of General Semantics |volume=49 |issue=2 |pages=75–79 |publisher=Institute of General Semantics }}</ref>

* "Effective writing techniques" are not relevant to general semantics as a discipline, and therefore it should not be promoted as general semantics practice. E-Prime does not distinguish statements that disobey the principles of general semantics from statements that do not. It lacks consistency with the other tenets of general semantics and should not be included into the discipline.
* The advocates of E-Prime have not proven that it is easier to exclude the verb ''to be'' than to eliminate only the "is" of identity and the "is" of [[Predicate (grammar)|predication]]. It may well be easier to do the latter for many people. ''To be'' statements convey not only identity but also [[asymmetrical]] [[Relation (philosophy)|relation]]s ("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.
* The elimination of a whole class of sentences results in fewer alternatives and is likely to make writing less, rather than more, interesting. One can improve bad writing more by reducing use of the verb 'to be' than by excluding it.
* The context often ameliorates the possible harmful effects from the use of the "is" of identity and the "is" of predication, so it is not necessary to eliminate all such sentences. For example, "He is a judge" in response to a question about what someone does for a living would not be questionable, although "He works as a judge" would be an equivalent E-Prime sentence.
* Excluding ''to be'' has little effect on eliminating identity. For example, a statement of apparently equal identification, "The silly ban on copula continues," can be made without the copula assuming an identity rather than asserting it, consequently hampering our awareness of it.
* Identity-in-the-language is not the same as the far more important identity-in-reaction (identification). General semantics cuts the link between the two through the practice of silence on the objective levels, adopting a self-reflexive attitude, e.g., "as I see it" "it seems to me" etc., and by the use of quotation marks—without using E-Prime. One of the best languages for [[General semantics#The major premises|time-binding]] is mathematics, which relies heavily on the notion of equivalence and equality. For the purposes of time-binding, it may be better to cut the link between identity-in-the-language and identity-in-reaction.

According to an article (written in E-Prime and advocating a role for E-Prime in [[English as a foreign or second language|ESL and EFL]] programs) published by the Office of English Language Programs of the [[Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs]] in the [[United States Department of State|State Department]] of the United States, "Requiring students to avoid the verb to be on every assignment would deter students from developing other fundamental skills of fluent writing."<ref>{{cite web |first=John C. |last=Herbert |title=English Prime as an Instructional Tool in Writing Classes |url=http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol41/no3/p26.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061007112531/http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol41/no3/p26.htm |archive-date=2006-10-07 |work=English Teaching Forum Online |publisher=United States Department of State |access-date=2009-10-06 |quote=When applying the aforementioned ideas to any writing assignment, teachers must make sure their students know that the proposed set of guidelines represents only one means to an end and does not present an end in itself. Requiring students to avoid the verb to be on every assignment would deter students from developing other fundamental skills of fluent writing. However, introducing E-Prime restrictions for at least one assignment forces students to spend more time with their essays, to think critically about acceptable grammar and vocabulary, and to search for new, or nearly forgotten, vocabulary. }}</ref>