# Elimination of "to be." **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 28, 2001, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elimination-of-to-be/66748 "2001-05-28T04:45:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Doobieous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Doobieous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doobieous)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2001, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elimination-of-to-be/66748/21 "2001-05-28T22:40:05Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Terminus Est \* \*\* > [@](#): > > I don’t know about this. I had to think about that last pair of examples. It seems that the passive voice is actually preferred in certain instances. > > IANALinguist (but IAAFilipino). > > \*\* Well, don’t I feel embarassed :). But here’s a question, and sorry for derailing this thread. I asked on a linguistics related mailing list about this once, and was given the reply that trigger systems really dont have passive voice, as it exists in English, or Spanish (well, dumb question, of course not…there’s no actual verb “to be”). But, some of the triggers imply passivity. But anyway, Tagalog DOES get by without an actual verb for to be. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2001, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elimination-of-to-be/66748/22 "2001-05-28T23:45:55Z")
Quoth **Achernar** : > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Often _writers should get rid of_ the passive voice, but the _OP is_ not _asking_ that. At least, I don’t believe so, since I’ve also heard of it from a friend, who called English, without the verb of being, E2. Unlike eliminating the passive voice, eliminating all forms of “be” often requires you to say something slightly different, rather than rephrase what you already said. As an example, here _I rewrite_ my post so far: (underlining mine) What was that you were saying about eliminating _all_ forms of the verb “to be”? Perhaps saying “…the OP does not ask that”, or, if we want eliminate “do”, too (heck, why not?), then “…the OP asks that not”. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2001, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elimination-of-to-be/66748/23 "2001-05-28T23:55:09Z")
Whoops, we both slipped. “Gotcha!” answered by an equal and opposite “Gotcha!” This just goes to show how hard it is to break such a deeply ingrained habit, even when you’re trying your darndest not to. I’m not a General Semanticist, of course, but I was trying to do their thing to see what it was like. What is **Gaudere** ’s Law? To be hoist by one’s own petard? ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2001, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elimination-of-to-be/66748/24 "2001-05-29T02:04:52Z")
Good point **Chronos**. As I was typing that post, I was fully aware that the verb of being is also used as an auxiliary verb, and that I was using it thus. As I understand it, E2 (if that’s what it’s really called) does not preclude this construction, but I should have made that clear at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Lao](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dr.Lao](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Lao)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2001, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elimination-of-to-be/66748/25 "2001-05-29T02:20:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jomo Mojo \* > \*\*What is **Gaudere** ’s Law? To be hoist by one’s own petard? \*\* In a way, but specifically applying to grammar. **Gaudere** ’s Law states that whenever one corrects another’s grammar, he will make a grammatical mistake in the process. ---
**Author:** ![Drastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Drastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drastic)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2001, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elimination-of-to-be/66748/26 "2001-05-29T04:58:20Z")
I’ve found that using [e-prime](http://www.extropy.org/faq/eprime.html) brings attention mostly to how often we use the construction “is”. I have doubts on the other benefits sometimes attributed to it, but do find rewriting things according to it causes feelings of entertainment in me. ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2001, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elimination-of-to-be/66748/27 "2001-05-29T05:23:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doobieous \* > \*\*Well, don’t I feel embarassed :). But here’s a question, and sorry for derailing this thread. I asked on a linguistics related mailing list about this once, and was given the reply that trigger systems really dont have passive voice, as it exists in English, or Spanish (well, dumb question, of course not…there’s no actual verb “to be”). But, some of the triggers imply passivity. > \*\* As I said before, IANALingust, so this might very well be true. The construction that you use depends on whether there is an (often implied) object, and if you want to emphasize the subject, the object, or the action. Consider: [ul] [li] Ako ay kumain. - I ate. [subject emphasized][/li][li] Kumain ako. - I ate. [action emphasized][/li][li] Kinain ko. - I ate (it). [object emphasized though implied][/li][/ul] To further confuse things, you can add an explicit object if you wish, such that “I ate the mango” comes out to be: [ul] [li] Ako ay kumain ng mangga.[/li][li] Kumain ako ng mangga.[/li][li] Kinain ko ang mangga.[/li][/ul] The first two, since they’re not really focused on the mango itself, could be translated more closely as “I ate (some) mango.” The last construction, since it emphasizes the object, is often translated into the passive voice in English: “The manggo was eaten by me.” Come to think of it, there are a couple of other constructions you can make, which I guess come closer to what passive voice is all about: [ul] [li] Ako ay kinain (ng mangga).[/li][li] Kinain ako (ng mangga).[/li][/ul] These both mean “I was eaten (by the mango)” which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, of course. I guess I chose a bad example. :o I’m trying to come up with the active voice equivalent - “The mango ate me” - but as near as I can figure out, there isn’t any. > [@](#): > > \*\*But anyway, Tagalog DOES get by without an actual verb for to be. \*\* The nearest equivalent would be the helper verb “ay”, which you can always avoid using if you set your mind to it: [ul] [li] Ako ay Filipino - I am Filipino[/li][li] Filipino ako - I am Filipino[/li][/ul] In casual conversation, you usually choose the second construction, since it’s shorter. In more formal situations, you usually go the long way around. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2001, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elimination-of-to-be/66748/28 "2001-05-29T22:21:28Z")
Robert Anton Wilson used E-prime to write some of his (non-fiction) books. It helps to make his thoughts and conclusions about his (sometimes) unusual and controversial subject matter more clear. “I believe this” or “This seems likely to me” rather than “This _ **is** _ a fact”. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2001, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elimination-of-to-be/66748/29 "2001-05-29T23:23:14Z")
Okay, it seems to me that there are actually at least two movements to eliminate the forms of the word “be”, and they have two different reasons. I assumed, as I think a couple of the early posters did, that it was being done for grammatical reasons. Others have claimed that it’s for, I don’t know, philosophical reasons? Grammatical reason: Passive voice, though good in some cases, is regarded by some as a weak use of a verb. In de-emphasizing the subject, it also de-emphasizes the action. Active voice, these people would say, is stronger. Sentences with a linking verb are somewhere in the middle. They’re not de-emphasizing anything, but there’s no action to begin with. If we got rid of linking verbs altogether, it would strengthen the language. That’s why I said it was okay to use “is” as an auxiliary verb. The point isn’t that we hate the word “is”, but that we don’t want any linking going on. I guess that proponents of this would also have problems with the few other linking verbs in our language, such as “become”. Philosophical reason: Others have explained this better, but it’s a way to avoid claim to many solid facts. I’m not sure which one the OP was referring to, but since it was described as a “literary movement”, I would lean toward the former. Does the OP (or anyone who’s read the book mentioned there) have any more details? The fact of the matter is, though, that no language I know gets along without at least a _sense_ of being. Tagalog doesn’t look to be any different, even though the verb of being can be implied. I know this is also true with Greek and Latin. The line from Hamlet, Act III, scene i, does not really go against the spirit of either movement, since “be” there is not used to link any ideas together, but rather to mean “live”. I don’t think that proponents of either movement would have you change it. However, take as an example the beginning of the Gospel according to John, Chapter 1: > [@](#): > > [sup]1[/sup] In the beginning there was the word, and the word was with God, and God was the word. [sup]2[/sup] It was, in the beginning, with God. [sup]3[/sup] All things came to be through it, and without it, not one thing came to be. That which came to be [sup]4[/sup] within it was life, and the life was the light of men; I’d like to see someone try to rewrite _that_ without any forms of “be”. ---
**Author:** ![Saltire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saltire/32/553_2.png) [@Saltire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saltire)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2001, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elimination-of-to-be/66748/30 "2001-05-29T23:27:54Z")
Mea culpa. I was indeed misrepresenting the passive voice in my first post on this thread. However, I think that most efforts to force active writing do tend to eliminate participles as well. Two examples have been cited here: evilbeth’s english class, and the MS Word grammar checker. Scarlett67, please accept my apologies for the pain I obviously caused you. I quite agree that grammar checkers are terrible. From time to time I turn the lousy thing on out of curiousity, and it will paint many a good sentence as questionable. I hope that no one thinks I was recommending the use of Word’s grammar checker (or Word itself, for that matter). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elimination-of-to-be/66748.md?page=1)