on a reformation of the english language

the language e-prime has basis in the language of english, but lacks all forms of the verb “to be”. the recently deceased robert anton wilson, a prominent discordian, advocated e-prime. albert ellis, inventor of rational emotive behavioral therapy, a man who is near death but still alive, also has advocated e-prime. both of these modern-day philosopher-geniuses also tried to use e-prime. this blog post might have e-prime as its language, but i lack clarity as to the validity of my e-prime language skills. possibly other rules apply to e-prime besides removing the verb “to be”. my own agenda for english language reformation includes making the language entirely phonetic, so that spelling determines pronunciation and pronunciation determines spelling. i envision each separate type of thing, action, or quality having its own word, but only 1 word, and no word may have multiple meanings. allow only 1 word for snow, unlike in eskimo language, for example. my reformed english would have no ambiguity or double meanings, and it would require literal meaning of all words and phrases. no confusion would ever exist as to the meaning of anything, since all words would have strict definitions. no slang or jargon or dialects would exist. metaphors would not have any permission for existence in my revised english, but similes would certainly exist. e-prime seems difficult to me, and i have quite a bit of difficulty avoiding the verb “to be” entirely, but i do my best. my new language might have even more difficulty coming about into existence as a real language, compared to e-prime. for one thing, i have not even started developing this language. but english seems a perfect basis for a new language, since i only know english well, and other languages i know partially or not at all. english finds the widest usage among the nations of the world, i believe. chinese may have more primary speakers, and spanish may have a higher number of nation-states that use it as their primary language, but english still has more people who know at least some of it, making it #1 in some sense. english predominates on the internet as the most popular of the languages. so why not base something new on the foundation of the most popular language? english lacks the complex verb endings that plague other languages, the ones for tense, person, number, voice, etc. it also lacks complex noun endings such as in latin. it seems best to use multiple words for putting together verb tenses or expressing what noun serves as the subject or object (and direct or indirect object). perhaps passive voice and subjunctive mood have no reason for existence in a new, logical language. simplicity seems best. perhaps no official verb tenses, but only the use of helping verbs to establish tense. for example, the helping verb “will” or “shall” establishes the future tense in english. the past tense could have similar helping verbs, like “did” or “have” or “had”, without relying on verb endings. and i see no reason for the infinitive (e.g. “to eat”) and progressive (e.g. “eating”) to both exist separately; simply having an infinitive form should suffice. ideally, i would eliminate all endings, even the -s for nouns and verbs and the -ly to turn adverbs into adjectives, instead relying on more words, and word order. but first i must devise a phonetic alphabet for english, to transform the spellings of existing words and make all words phonetic. phonetic alphabets already exist, but mine would make things look more like english than the weird phonetic spellings you find in a dictionary. you may have noticed my use of lowercase throughout most of my blog entries; i have long done this practice in order to de-emphasize what i am saying and indicate the lack of importance of my own opinions in the larger scheme of things. perhaps there may exist need for new rules on capitalization, or even linguistic meanings for font styles such as bold, italics, underline, serif, sans-serif, cursive, font color, and background color. but that seems excessive. perhaps simply the rule on capitalization might indicate to capitalize the first word of the sentence, and words which name people or things but are not actual words of the new language itself. the language could distinguish between words from within the language and things that have not yet been assimilated into it, using capitalization or some other feature. well i must sleep/rest/nap/whatever now. i wish all of you good fortune and happiness, and apologize for any divisiveness/intolerance/hatred/stupidity/closed-mindedness i may have demonstrated in this or earlier blog posts here. mainly my views on religion and politics may have offended people and caused them to worry about me. i implore the reader not to worry, and i shall endeavor to reform my ways and have more tolerance towards the views of others, and take them seriously and reconsider what i think and question its validity. i have lately listened to the christian radio to hear the radio preachers and now it seems a bit less nonsensical and crazy; now i see more value to what these people do and i see how it apparently seems to help people a good portion of the time. giving sound advice to those in need of counsel seems a worthy endeavor, and those on the radio who pursue this goal, regardless of whatever odd beliefs they may have, ought to be commended for their service to humanity. my goals for language reform aim to create a language free from any uncertainty as to the meaning of anything, a language where all things have strict definitions and the deterministic grammar has many rules, none of which have any exceptions. it seems that i use the verb “have” in place of the verb “to be”. i wonder if my usage of e-prime has validity or if i have violated the rules of e-prime. i hope to build on the foundation of efforts like e-prime to reform language, since human ideas are based on language, and much of the illogical thinking and stupidity out there may likely be based, at least somewhat, on the flaws of existing languages. i believe changing the language would probably help people find something closer to logic and reason. but i do find this quite difficult, to word everything in e-prime. if i manage to develop a new phonetic alphabet based on english spelling, i may write all future posts in my new phonetic alphabet, to promote it. but i believe this an unlikely outcome, for my commitment to creating a new language lacks willpower, and it seems likely i may abandon this pursuit as a silly waste of time. i hope those who read this find some inspiration to change their language usage, perhaps by speaking in e-prime. i must study these matters in greater detail. i am mainly disturbed by, among other things, the way people feel the need to interpret books like the bible or the constitution, and the existence of so many versions of the bible. why can books not simply speak for themselves, written in language that has no ambiguity, no double meanings, no metaphors, no uncertainties, completely clear with no possibility for misinterpretation? how can anyone accept the validity of the bible, a book that has no official version, no official interpretation, no official meaning, a book that many people have interpreted quite differently? it seems to me like the vast number of christian denominations and the vast number of interpretations of the bible both pose extremely difficult challenges to anyone trying to understand what christianity actually teaches or what beliefs a real christian must have. i cannot accept christianity, the most fragmented of all religions, one with no official doctrine or authority. one church may claim to possess the official doctrine and have final authority, but then why do so many other churches have other teachings or practices? i believe any true religion would demonstrate complete uniformity of belief, with only 1 interpretation, with no fragmentation. even the catholic church, the church that once had official domination of all christendom, still has a great deal of internal fragmentation and theological debate. the diversity of theological views of catholics shows that catholicism does not have all the answers. and as for protestants, they have much greater divisions, but perhaps there may exist some churches which have uniform dogma which all members accept completely. but any true religion would not have any dogma which contradicts the findings of modern science or has any self-contradiction or serious internal inconsistencies. any true religion would not violate the obvious truths of humanistic morality, and would not condemn people based upon things beyond those people’s control, such as what belief system their parents raised them to believe in, or what country someone lives their entire life in. no true religion would ever claim that all nonbelievers go to hell, for example. by analyzing statistics on religious beliefs of people in each of the countries of the world, it becomes obvious that many countries have certain religions which predominate, and condemning the vast majority of the people of a certain country seems to me something obviously immoral and wrong, an expression of cultural imperialism, a sense of superiority and self-entitlement. what fool dares condemn the people of india for hinduism, the people of thailand for buddhism, the people of latin america for catholicism, or the people of arabia for islam? how can one expect people to find the one true religion if that religion does not even exist in a given country? and what about those people who existed prior to the existence of any so-called one true religion? does damnation await all of them simply because of the unfortunate circumstances of when and where they lived? after the crucifixion of jesus christ, before christianity spread across the globe, did the people of far-off lands all go to hell after dying? christianity, judaism, and islam all have the same problems that make them seem to me quite obviously false. none of them has compassion towards unbelievers or treats those of other belief systems with respect. i have not studied the polytheistic religions like hinduism and buddhism as much, but i believe them to also have many problems, because of the absurdities involved in the reincarnation process and the simple mathematics of it all. how can everyone have so many past lives despite exponential population growth and the fact that previous generations had much fewer people? the caste system alone disproves hinduism, in my mind. and buddhism, based on the funamentally flawed hinduism, also seems like it must be rejected as false, at least to me. i cannot abide by the sanctioning of injustice. and if religions do allow for people to change the beliefs of the religion and change fundamental things, does this not discredit the whole enterprise? i have heard much about liberal theologians who completely redefined christianity and rejected the infallibility and literal truth of the bible. how dare they do this! why must they redefine and reinterpret things but still claim to follow christianity? ought they not to simply abandon the entire pursuit and reject christianity? i do not understand the basis for redefining something such as christianity. if the bible forms the basis of all christian belief, then how can a christian reject it? how can people redefine god? who gave them this right? i think only fundamentalists can truly define christianity, for they actually base their beliefs on the original sacred texts. and on the basis of seeing the flaws of the christian fundamentalist beliefs, i reject christianity. why have watered-down beliefs? utter stupidity! take a stance! do not compromise! i do not see those who have watered-down beliefs as true christians; i see the hateful loony fringe as the only real christians. those who have compromised and do not accept all of the bible as literal fact should just join me and become atheists. they have already rejected true christianity, so why not go all the way? why not have more intellectual honesty instead of pretending to believe and practice christianity, despite rejection of its core beliefs? true christians believe that all who do not accept jesus christ as their personal savior will suffer eternal torment in hell. all who hold other viewpoints have rejected the bible and its teachings. and i advocate rejection of religion, on that basis. if only the bible used clearer language with less room for ambiguity or confusion! that would make things much easier for people in evaluating the truthiness of the bible! most people simply accept christianity due to the cost-benefit analysis of whether to practice christianity or disbelieve. cost-benefit analysis aimed at personal salvation does not lead people to the truth. people seek heaven rather than hell out of pure selfishness, in the process rejecting the path of searching for the truth, because in their ignorance, they think looking for the truth might cause more harm than good and require too much time and effort and brainpower. people do not like to have to think too much, and choosing heaven over hell, talk about an easy choice! i advocate a tireless search for the truth, and constant questioning of all things, for my over-arching concern for the truth exceeds all of my short-sighted selfish concerns. searching for the truth provides the reason to reform language: encouraging logic and rationality, and discouraging emotion-based irrationality and false assumptions that never get questioned. i shall close by finally giving up and using the verb “to be” (assuming i did not accidentally use it already). writing or speaking in e-prime is too fucking hard (pardon the curse word)!