Thread: Perfect English (A question to native English speakers)

---

Originally Posted by charlestonian

Here is another example of "perfect English":

Hillbilly/English

Dickshunairy

Vol. I, No. 5

bein a dickshunerry of how hillbilly english is used by buddy don duncan, mane care ackter in life n pinions of buddy don, hillbilly. utherns have differnt ways to use hillbilly n thays minny a bidy thats knows moren i do. but this mite be a hep in readin sum of buddy don's ritin. corse, tiz a wurk in progress. i reckon i oughta do a grammar, too, but one thang at a time.

(3/13/2004) i added eggzamples of usage fer mos of the wurds that starts with the letter a.

as ye kin see over on the rite hand side thar, thays a slew of folk thats dun suggested sum wurds. i preciate the hep, so i list thar names with the number of wurds they dun suggested in parenthesees. ifn they gut a blog, i put a lank in.

heres how ye kin share yer wurd or fraze with the worl by gittin it into the dickshunairy:

figger out a wurd or fraze that oughta be in hear but aint yet
rite it down in a email to buddy don OR . . .
put it into a comment at the verr bottom of this page (tiz a long way down thar)

...an' that ain't no bull y'all!

HAHAHA!!!

Thanks, charlestonian. Yep... where my family comes from... Arkansas... this is "perfect" English.


Scotcher... did you understand this one?

---

---

Люди, обязательно всовывать в цитату страницу текста, чтобы написать в ответ два слова?

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

Люди, обязательно всовывать в цитату страницу текста, чтобы написать в ответ два слова?

Yes... for complete meaning. On this forum, very often.

Dobry, you are being an idiot. Ramil said in the very first post:

Speaking of which - the good source would be texts containing 'perfect English' preferably of modern everyday speaking style rich with modern idioms, with extended vocabulary and with some part of direct speech.

It is perfectly obvious that Ramil's definition of 'perfect' is 'flawless', and that he is not looking for a theoretical absolute state of perfection.

Hell, he even placed the word 'perfect' in inverted commas to acknowledge the distinction.

Now, you are of course free to carry on arguing that a state of perfection cannot exist, by dreaming up the most unreasonable, strictest set of circumstances you can think of, but what logically follows from that assertion is that the question is invalid, and therefore there is no point in continuing the discussion. Thread over, move along, nothing to see here.

All I am saying is that, for the sake of not rendering the thread moot or derailing it with some high-school debating society nonsense, we should perhaps adopt a slightly less stringent, more reasonable definition of 'perfect', i.e. the one Ramil was using in the first place, thus allowing the discussion to stay on topic.

Do you see the difference? I am not saying that your point is wrong, I am saying that it is irrelevant to the question asked in the terms it was asked, and that it is anyway such an obvious truism that it needn't have been mentioned in the first frikkin' place.

scotcher is right. I used the term 'Perfect English' just to put a stress on the fact that I want to find a preferably interesting texts to read which may be considered 'Perfect' in a sense that they are grammatically correct and use modern vocabulary and idioms.
The main difficulty I have when selecting texts is that I don't know whether a picked one shoud be viewed as an example of a correct language usage.
I may read a text written by native English speaker but I wouldn't know whether his speech is correct or not. I have no criteria.

Although strictly speaking it is not a question to me, I'd like to comment. I'm pretty sure, if someone who is not mental sees "behaviour" or "centre" instead of "behavior" or "center" that he is used to, he is not gonna go "OMG, this person is such a godawful speller, definitely not a native speaker". Well, I have certainly been corrected by ukrainians and chinese on those ones.

Ramil, simply take any fairly well-known fiction book by a modern British or American writer and read it. That will do the trick, after all, they can't be that bad. Otherwise, drop your communist beliefs and come on over to an English-speaking country. You'll pick up those nasty articles in no time.

Originally Posted by scotcher

Dobry, you are being an idiot.

One of the reasons why I love English is because you can say both
1. You're being an idiot (not all is lost)
2. You're an idiot (all is lost)

По русски только один вариант - Ты идиот


PS For me the perfect English is that English where you're allowed to use perfect tences. period.

Originally Posted by Chuvak

Originally Posted by scotcher

Dobry, you are being an idiot.

One of the reasons why I love English is because you can say both
1. You're being an idiot (not all is lost)
2. You're an idiot (all is lost)

По русски только один вариант - Ты идиот


PS For me the perfect English is that English where you're allowed to use perfect tences. period.

Originally Posted by scotcher

Dobry, you are being an idiot. Ramil said in the very first post:

Scotcher...

You know, there is no reason for you to be offensive and nasty and call me an idiot... or say I'm speaking nonsense. I have not been offensive to you. But I've definitely pushed one of your buttons.

I have an opinion and I disagree with you, about your general idea of correct grammatical English. I base my opinion on teaching and working with foreign speakers over many years. But I don't go calling people idiots.

I understand what Ramil wants. I was simply making an important point about trying to find English texts to try to learn correct grammar, and that there is no central authority or "standard" for determining what is "perfect" English.

Scotcher and Ramil...

The fact of the matter... most modern English texts are not written with correct grammar. Most texts are written in a more colloquial style. I sensed that Ramil wanted texts that are "grammatically correct", and most fiction/non-fiction books written today are not.

Even some of our best modern English authors... including Faulkner, James Joyce, Gore Vidal, Thomas Pynchon... do not use "grammatically correct" English.

Nightwatch, for example... I liked the books in Russian, but would you say all the Russian is "grammatically correct"?

But adoc is right. Ramil can pick up a lot of natural, colloquial English by reading modern novels. This would definitely improve his fluency, and natural English.

Ramil, if you like science fiction, start reading Frank Herbert's "Dune" series. Great set of books, well-written, and very good grammar. Stephen King also. I think your level of English is good, and these books are fun to read. These are written in American English. For a British style, then I'd recommend The Harry Potter series. Very well-written, and I learned many British vocabulary words that we never use in America.

For something more literary... try reading anything from William Faulkner, Thomas Pynchon, and Mark Helprin. Helprin's Winter's Tale is well-written, the grammar is excellent, and it's a fun read. American English.

The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was an English linguist and professor, and these books are written in excellent grammar. British English.

James Joyce's Ulysses. "Joyce" English. Unlike any other English, except perhaps William Faulkner. Joyce was Irish.

William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury. "Faulkner" English. Faulkner was a Southern American. Very southern!

Joyce and Faulkner are widely considered to be the two best English authors of the 20th century. Yet, they threw "correct" grammar away, and developed their own styles and grammar... called "stream of consciousness". Pure English, their books are considered classics... and yet they broke all the grammar rules. But their books are masterpieces.

Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow, Crying of Lot 49, and his others (he's still alive and writing), has developed his own style of English, and also breaks many grammar rules, in a very brilliant and wonderful way. He's probably the best living American author. He is "following in the footsteps" of Joyce and Faulkner.

My main point was that there is no actual authority, anymore, for what is considered "perfect" or "correct" English. Our best authors have broken, and are still breaking many of the old grammar rules for English, and they are essentially evolving and changing English grammar rules.

There is no standard, or authority for grammar anymore. English has divided into many different directions. And there are grammar changes with these divisions. Australian, British, American and Canadian... and within each of those styles, English branches into further divisions.

Originally Posted by Dobry

Originally Posted by scotcher

Dobry, you are being an idiot. Ramil said in the very first post:

Scotcher...

You know, there is no reason for you to be offensive and nasty and call me an idiot... or say I'm speaking nonsense. I have not been offensive to you. But I've definitely pushed one of your buttons.
...

Добрый, я восхищаюсь твоей сдержанностью и рассудительностью.
You are cool!

Originally Posted by Dobry

Even some of our best modern English authors... including Faulkner, James Joyce, Gore Vidal, Thomas Pynchon... do not use "grammatically correct" English.

My thought exactly so I asked because I needed an advice.

Nightwatch, for example... I liked the books in Russian, but would you say all the Russian is "grammatically correct"?

Russian grammar is tolerant to such things so most of books (good books I'd say ) are written with ... well... acceptable grammar.
Consider - we don't care about the word order neither do we have articles. Prefixes which are being a nightmare to foreigners don't present any problem because Russian native speakers (and writers) use them instinctively. That would have incorrect spelling (an editor's problem) and style remaining. A bad author has a poor vocabulary and constructs simple sentenses so it's very boring to read them.

Ramil, if you like science fiction, start reading Frank Herbert's "Dune" series. Great set of books, well-written, and very good grammar. Stephen King also. I think your level of English is good, and these books are fun to read. These are written in American English. For a British style, then I'd recommend The Harry Potter series. Very well-written, and I learned many British vocabulary words that we never use in America.
For something more literary... try reading anything from William Faulkner, Thomas Pynchon, and Mark Helprin. Helprin's Winter's Tale is well-written, the grammar is excellent, and it's a fun read. American English.
The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was an English linguist and professor, and these books are written in excellent grammar. British English.
James Joyce's Ulysses. "Joyce" English. Unlike any other English, except perhaps William Faulkner. Joyce was Irish.
William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury. "Faulkner" English. Faulkner was a Southern American. Very southern!
Joyce and Faulkner are widely considered to be the two best English authors of the 20th century. Yet, they threw "correct" grammar away, and developed their own styles and grammar... called "stream of consciousness". Pure English, their books are considered classics... and yet they broke all the grammar rules. But their books are masterpieces.
Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow, Crying of Lot 49, and his others (he's still alive and writing), has developed his own style of English, and also breaks many grammar rules, in a very brilliant and wonderful way. He's probably the best living American author. He is of Joyce and Faulkner.

Thanks Dobry - you're really Добрый An answer I've been waiting for.

My main point was that there is no actual authority, anymore, for what is considered "perfect" or "correct" English. Our best authors have broken, and are still breaking many of the old grammar rules for English, and they are essentially evolving and changing English grammar rules.
There is no standard, or authority for grammar anymore. English has divided into many different directions. And there are grammar changes with these divisions. Australian, British, American and Canadian... and within each of those styles, English branches into further divisions.

That's another question I needed answer to.

P.S. You've forgot to mention a Chinese English. I could curse for a week about it.

---

Originally Posted by charlestonian

There is no standard, or authority for grammar anymore. English has divided into many different directions. And there are grammar changes with these divisions. Australian, British, American and Canadian... and within each of those styles, English branches into further divisions

And, don't forget ebonics and Bubba's English

I've never encountered these two. A sheer luck maybe.

Originally Posted by Chuvak

Originally Posted by scotcher

Dobry, you are being an idiot.

One of the reasons why I love English is because you can say both
1. You're being an idiot (not all is lost)
2. You're an idiot (all is lost)

По русски только один вариант - Ты идиот


PS For me the perfect English is that English where you're allowed to use perfect tences. period.

That's because your translation into Russian is incorrect. I would translate "you're being an idiot" as "ty vedsyosh sebya kak idiot" or even "nu chto ty kak idiot".

we don't care about the word order

Not entirely true. Although the word order in Russian is technically more loose than in English (because we have cases to glue the words together with), reality is that native speakers of Russian normally stick to a few stable constructions. Being too liberal with your word order could in fact make you sound pretentious and in some cases even unnatural. People speak in chunks and within those chunks the word order is more or less fixed.

---

Originally Posted by Chuvak

One of the reasons why I love English is because you can say both
1. You're being an idiot (not all is lost)
2. You're an idiot (all is lost)

How many times has a man said "I did not call you a bitch I said you're acting like a bitch"? Women don't usually see the distinction here.