# Forum Other Languages English for Russians - Изучаем английский язык Learn English - Грамматика, переводы, словарный запас  Perfect English (A question to native English speakers)

## Ramil

How often does it attract your attention, when while reading a text (any text) there are some  mistakes in articles usage? 
Do native speakers themselves make such mistakes? How often? 
I'll try to explain why I ask. I'm long since surrendered myself to the fact that proper article usage would forever remain a mystery I'd fail to comprehend.  ::  
I've found a solution - reading a lot of texts written by people who speaks good English will improve my understanding. 
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. 
What would you recommend me to read, considering the above?

----------


## Бармалей

I said "always" and I mean "usually."  ::  It seems like I don't really notice them when I'm the author of the text.  ::   But to answer your question more seriously, yes, if I'm reading closely, I typically see errors. With that being said, I have to confess, my opinion of the author depends on whether they are perceived to be a native speaker or not. If they ARE a native speaker, and it's not just a handful of errors, then I form an opinion that they are ignorant/lazy and I don't really give the text as much respect. Is that fair? Maybe not, but that's the truth. If it is a non-native speaker and as long as I can follow the basic train of thought, then it's usually not nearly as irritating and I give them the benefit of the doubt in that regard. Does that make any sense?

----------


## Ramil

> I said "always" and I mean "usually."  It seems like I don't really notice them when I'm the author of the text.   But to answer your question more seriously, yes, if I'm reading closely, I typically see errors. With that being said, I have to confess, my opinion of the author depends on whether they are perceived to be a native speaker or not. If they ARE a native speaker, and it's not just a handful of errors, then I form an opinion that they are ignorant/lazy and I don't really give the text as much respect. Is that fair? Maybe not, but that's the truth. If it is a non-native speaker and as long as I can follow the basic train of thought, then it's usually not nearly as irritating and I give them the benefit of the doubt in that regard. Does that make any sense?

 Yes it does. Just like I myself feel irritated when I see my countrymen make errors in Russian but I'd say "Perfectly" if I see a couple of mistakes in a text written by a non-Russian. 
By the way, out of 100% (perfect skill) how much would you give me?

----------


## Бармалей

> By the way, out of 100% (perfect skill) how much would you give me?

 I'd say 3%?  ::    
Truthfully, probably like 90ish%? It's an incredibly subjective question, so I don't really know how to answer it. You have some crazy political ideas and your icon looks like a dancing booger  ::  , but you have a pretty good command and your sentences are typically pretty clear. There is of course some room for improvement (as always) -- in the opening post there are a few grammatical errors (the ones with verbs stand out). The biggest thing though, is just style. You're completely understandable, but just the way you phrase things can sound weird. I think you have exactly the right idea in mind with reading English-publications if that's something you want to address. Still, I'd say you have a very solid command of the language, which is no small task!

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  
> By the way, out of 100% (perfect skill) how much would you give me?   I'd say 3%?    
> Truthfully, probably like 90ish%? It's an incredibly subjective question, so I don't really know how to answer it. You have some crazy political ideas and your icon looks like a dancing booger  , but you have a pretty good command and your sentences are typically pretty clear. There is of course some room for improvement (as always) -- in the opening post there are a few grammatical errors (the ones with verbs stand out). The biggest thing though, is just style. You're completely understandable, but just the way you phrase things can sound weird. I think you have exactly the right idea in mind with reading English-publications if that's something you want to address. Still, I'd say you have a very solid command of the language, which is no small task!

 So the question is - how do I find out whether am I reading good English or another gibberish written by a dollar worth chinese translator. 
One of the drawbacks of being a translator is the fact that people speaking in different languages think differently. Sometimes it's hard to find out which way of thought posessed the author at which place.  
What shall be correct this time - the 'accuracy' or the 'rephrased sense' in the translation. A question I hate. 
And Barmaley, sometimes I myself think that those 3% is fair.  ::  
P.S. My political ideas helped me with girls in the past so I got used to them with time  :: 
And I've received a PM saying that my avatar is the cutest. I'm not kidding.   ::

----------


## Layne

There are times when a small thing like article usage can make a sentence at first make no sense at all or appear to mean something other than it does, but if I read it a couple of times I can understand what the writer is trying to say. I agree with barmaley, I don't find esl learners mistakes nearly as irritating as native speakers. For one thing, the mistakes and els learner makes are different from a native. I guess you grow up believing that anyone who can't get there/their/they're staright is a dumb ass and so it pisses you off to see it. "Their are flowers on they're table" is alot more offensive to me than "A train pulled into station".  
So far as your command of english...no natives I know have more than proably an 80% grasp on it. At some point though everthing you say will be correct but it still won't sound 'normal', no one can teach you how to choose words because we all do it differently. Your english is definaly very good though, better than alot of foreigners that live here.

----------


## Vincent Tailors

The biggest problem for esl learners, I'd say, is the oral stuff. I mean, the speed with which an esl learner speaks is considerably lower than that of a native. Sometimes I blame myself, what the f*ck!, say I to myself, why can some native imbecile speak fast and well, and I can't manage to spit out words so rapidly.  ::  
Of course, I've never been to an English-speaking country and I don't have much oral practice, but anyway...

----------


## Бармалей

> "Their are flowers on they're table"

 Is theyre flours on the table -- I thougth that the vace broke in many peices? 
Let's see if THAT makes Layne's head a'splode!  ::

----------


## Бармалей

> The biggest problem for esl learners, I'd say, is the oral stuff. I mean, the speed with which an esl learner speaks is considerably lower than that of a native. Sometimes I blame myself, what the f*ck!, say I to myself, why can some native imbecile speak fast and well, and I can't manage to spit out words so rapidly.  
> Of course, I've never been to an English-speaking country and I don't have much oral practice, but anyway...

 That has nothing to do with it being ESL but just ANYTHING-SL. Trust me, I know from personal experience with Russian.

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## Бармалей

> I have always wondered: If I have lived in the US the most of my life, does it qualify me as a native English speaker? Can somebody tell me?

 I suppose it's something of a slippery-slope. Truly, I'd say yes, but you can probably take two different meanings from the term:
-someone who speaks a language as a mother tongue (ie the first language they learned)
-someone who speaks a language at a native level
Really it doesn't matter, IMHO whether you were techinically born in an English-speaking country -- if you can communicate at a native level that's really all that's important. Again, this whole thing is entirely subjective.

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

The biggest problem for Russians are the articles. They give you away on the spot. Word order is also a big thing. I have a Russian colleague (who has lived in the US the past 20 years) who keeps saying "What it is?" instead of "What is it?"... aaargh  ::

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## gRomoZeka

> I agree with barmaley, I don't find esl learners mistakes nearly as irritating as native speakers.

 I agree with you, I'm indulgent toward foreign learners mistakes too. It's always nice that a person made at least _that_ ammount of efforts to learn other langiage.  
But there is opportunity that my enthusiasm will fade a little if the person speaks with a very strong accent and uses wrong stresses all the time turning every his/her word in an enigma.
Though I'm always admire those who mastered cases, that's my weakness.   ::  I usually think to myself that person speaks Russian "(almost) perfect" even if he/she has a poor vocabulary or/and strong accent.
So: cases are good, strong accent is... not so good. 
Can you tell what mistakes of esl learners are more irritating than the others? Or what aspect of the language (word usage, articles, etc.) is more important for making an impression of "perfect english"?

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie  The biggest problem for Russians are the articles. They give you away on the spot. Word order is also a big thing. I have a Russian colleauge (who has lived in the US the past 20 years) who keeps saying "What it is?" instead of "What is it?"... aaargh    I am sure you wanted to say "colleague"

 Yse, taht si waht I wnaetd ot sya. tahksn fro teh crorecitno!

----------


## Chuvak

> [You're completely understandable, but just the way you phrase things can sound weird.

 That's the point !!! despite of knowing the grammar you may still sound wierd if you're a nonnative speaker, because you still think in your native language. The grammar itseld doesn't guarantee your perfect skills in a language.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Бармалей  [You're completely understandable, but just the way you phrase things can sound weird.   That's the point !!! despite of knowing the grammar you may still sound wierd if you're a nonnative speaker, because you still think in your native language. The grammar itseld doesn't guarantee your perfect skills in a language.

 I don't think in Russian when I write or talk in English. I think in English but it doesn't help because I think incorrectly  ::  
And people what about my question from the original post:  

> ...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.  
> What would you recommend me to read, considering the above?

----------


## basurero

> Originally Posted by Бармалей  [You're completely understandable, but just the way you phrase things can sound weird.   That's the point !!! despite _ knowing the grammar you may still sound wierd if you're a nonnative speaker, because you still think in your native language. The grammar itselф doesn't guarantee _ perfect skills in a language.

  

> How often does it attract your attention, when while reading a text (any text) there are some  mistakes in articles usage? 
> Do native speakers themselves make such mistakes? How often? 
> I'll try to explain why I ask. I've long since surrendered myself to the fact that proper article usage would forever remain a mystery I'd fail to comprehend.  
> I've found a solution - reading a lot of texts written by people who speak_ good English will improve my understanding. 
> Speaking of which - a 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. 
> What would you recommend me to read, considering the above?

----------


## basurero

> Yes it does. Just like I myself feel irritated when I see my countrymen make errors in Russian but I'd say "Perfect_" if I see a couple of mistakes in a text written by a non-Russian. 
> By the way, out of 100% (perfect skill) how much would you give me?

   

> So the question is - how do I find out whether am I reading good English or another gibberish written by a dollar worth chinese translator. 
> One of the drawbacks of being a translator is the fact that people speaking in different languages think differently. Sometimes it's hard to find out which way of thought  the author possessed at which place. 
> What shall be correct this time - the 'accuracy' or the 'rephrased sense' in the translation. A question I hate. 
> And Barmaley, sometimes I myself think that that 3% is fair. Smile 
> P.S. My political ideas helped me with girls in the past so I got used to them with time Smile
> And I've received a PM saying that my avatar is the cutest. I'm not kidding. Smile

 Кстати, твой английский настолько хорош, что мне было очень трудно найти ошибки.

----------


## gRomoZeka

А на мой вопрос кто-нибудь ответит? Интересно все же, какие ошибки русскоязычных esl learners бросаются в глаза и мешают пониманию больше всего.
(Извини, Ramil, что в твою тему со своим самоваром.   ::  )

----------


## Бармалей

> Can you tell what mistakes of esl learners are more irritating than the others? Or what aspect of the language (word usage, articles, etc.) is more important for making an impression of "perfect english"?

 Like I said, I basically consider the source of the error more annoying than the error itself. Articles, meh. They mark you as a foreigner but I don't think they're that frustrating for a foreigner. Word order could be annoying if it's really out of whack. Using strange words, that is, words that a native speaker would never use in that context could make an argument appear disjointed. I think one of the biggest things, in addition to articles, in terms of frequency is the use of verbs -- a lot of times, that's a marker of a foreigner, since they pick the wrong verbs/forms/constructs. But again, not that "annoying," just somewhat confusing at times.

----------


## Бармалей

> Кстати, твой английский настолько хорош, что мне было очень трудно найти ошибки.

 Или, может быть твой английский настолько плох, что тебе было очень трудно найти ошибки. Это -- очень философский вопрос с никаким ясным ответом...  ::

----------


## Chuvak

> Originally Posted by basurero  Кстати, твой английский настолько хорош, что мне было очень трудно найти ошибки.   Или, может быть твой английский настолько плох, что тебе было очень трудно найти ошибки. Это -- очень философский вопрос с никаким ясным ответом...

 using philosophical line of reasoning, knowledge of English is relative. 
relative to you, my English is bad, but relative to me, your English is bad  ::

----------


## scotcher

In my experience, the last hurdle to English prefection for foreigners is slightly unnatural choice of tense and mood. All those "would have had" and "should have been" and "will have been doing" sentences.

----------


## Lampada

> Originally Posted by basurero  Кстати, твой английский настолько хорош, что мне было очень трудно найти ошибки.   Или, может быть, твой английский настолько плох, что тебе было бы очень трудно найти ошибки. Это _ очень философский вопрос, не имеющий ясного ответа...

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## Dobry

I've lived around so many different languages and non-native speakers, and had so many ESL/legal and business students, that for me I can usually understand the meaning and context even if word order, articles, conditionals and other grammar points are wrong.  Studying Russian has helped me develop this skill. 
I think the only grammar that catches my attention anymore are "phrasal verbs"... when a foreign speaker thinks that he or she has learned a phrasal verb (usually from an English movie or tv show, which is using "street English"...not "perfect English")...but with the incorrect meaning... and then he or she attempts to use the phrasal verb, usually also with incorrect word order.  This, in my opinion is a very difficult hurdle for foreign speakers, who are trying to sound as a native English speaker.   
As a teacher, this problem is difficult to correct in many students. 
By the way... there is no "perfect English"... there are probably 20-25 different variations of English, from the countries and the provinces within the English-speaking countries... but these variations are mainly vocabulary, and colloquial (spoken) differences... with a few minor grammar differences.   
For example... Most American English Professors would not agree that "Oxford English" (the old "standard") is the "correct", or "perfect" English.   
Who speaks "correct", "perfect" Russian?  Someone in St. Petersburg?  Moscow?  Novosibirsk?  Vladivostok?   
But... technical or legal documents and contracts, which are what I teach and work with, are very different.  No one speaks English in the form or grammar of a legal contract.  So... actually... I think "Legal English" is a another variation of English.   
As an attorney, I think that "Legal English" is actually as close to "perfect" English as possible.  "Legal English" with includes a mix of Latin words and phrases, is designed to be understand by any English speaking attorney, anywhere, even one thousand years from now.  It is designed for "permanent" (or as close to permanent as possible) understanding of the meaning and intention of the document.  But, as I said... nobody speaks using this form of English. 
But... 1,000 years from now, who knows?  There may be only a few languages remaining... 2 or 3 _mixed_ languages of English/Russian/Chinese/Japanese/Spanish/German/French... these are already developing in our lifetimes... or there may be a new global "common" language. 
More information than you probably wanted, Ramil.     ::

----------


## scotcher

I'd describe 'perfect English' as English without any errors.  
English speakers are remarkably tolerant of differences in style, vocabulary etc brought about by geography, to the point where they are completely irrelevant to any discussion of 'perfect English'.  
I do not hear "errors" when I listen to someone from New Zealand, or Canada, or any other English speaking country, I hear differences in style, and I am certain it is the same for them when listening to me. That is a world away from the sort of mistakes foreigners make which jump out of the air like the sound of nails on a blackboard.

----------


## Dobry

> I'd describe 'perfect English' as English without any errors.  
> English speakers are remarkably tolerant of differences in style, vocabulary etc brought about by geography, to the point where they are completely irrelevant to any discussion of 'perfect English'.  
> I do not hear "errors" when I listen to someone from New Zealand, or Canada, or any other English speaking country, I hear differences in style, and I am certain it is the same for them when listening to me. That is a world away from the sort of mistakes foreigners make which jump out of the air like the sound of nails on a blackboard.

 There are "errors", as you describe them... but usually in vocabulary, usage and spelling.   
For example... what is the correct spelling... "Center"... or is it "Centre"? 
Minor differences. 
One of my closest friends in Madrid is an excellent Irish ESL teacher, and when he speaks to Americans, he is very difficult to understand... grammar and vocabulary.  Many Americans would say he makes many errors, especially in usage.  But, in my opinion, he speaks "perfect" _Irish_ English. 
I understand your meaning... differences in style, and not "errors".   
But there are several important differences between British English, and American English.  Errors?  Or differences in style?   
Which English "style" is the "perfect" English?  There are important grammar, usage, vocabulary and spelling differences between the various forms of English.  
A person who learns American English "perfectly", probably cannot pass the British English Proficiency exam.  And the same in reverse, for a person who learns British English "perfectly", probably cannot pass an American English Proficiency exam. 
Interestingly... I understand Australian English much easier than British English.    ::

----------


## Бармалей

> Originally Posted by scotcher  I'd describe 'perfect English' as English without any errors.  
> English speakers are remarkably tolerant of differences in style, vocabulary etc brought about by geography, to the point where they are completely irrelevant to any discussion of 'perfect English'.  
> I do not hear "errors" when I listen to someone from New Zealand, or Canada, or any other English speaking country, I hear differences in style, and I am certain it is the same for them when listening to me. That is a world away from the sort of mistakes foreigners make which jump out of the air like the sound of nails on a blackboard.   There are "errors", as you describe them... but usually in vocabulary, usage and spelling.   
> For example... what is the correct spelling... "Center"... or is it "Centre"? 
> Minor differences. 
> One of my closest friends in Madrid is an excellent Irish ESL teacher, and when he speaks to Americans, he is very difficult to understand... grammar and vocabulary.  Many Americans would say he makes many errors, especially in usage.  But, in my opinion, he speaks "perfect" _Irish_ English. 
> I understand your meaning... differences in style, and not "errors".   
> But there are several important differences between British English, and American English.  Errors?  Or differences in style?   
> Which English "style" is the "perfect" English?  There are important grammar, usage, vocabulary and spelling differences between the various forms of English.  
> ...

 I very much doubt that an American wouldn't pass a British exam or vice versa. It's the same bloody language, just with regional variations. It's 99% mutually intelligible. Bob's your uncle? What the heck does that mean? But you certainly know, as some guy from Chicago, that it's just an exasperation. As much as it pains me, I think Scotcher's definition is right on. I may not understand every single word a Brit ever udders, but I certainly understand the overwhelming majority of what he said -- certainly enough to pass your proficency exam. Dom DeLuise, now that's another matter...

----------


## scotcher

Firstly, you are talking total nonsense Dobry. When an American speaks grammaticaly correct American English, reasonably intelligent people from other parts of the English speaking world do not hear errors, no matter how much the vocabulary, syntax or grammar differs from their own 'standard'. They are speaking 'perfect' English. 
Secondly, it is quite clear from the context what Ramil meant by 'perfect', and your nit-picking over that definition is adding absolutely nothing whatsoever to the discussion.

----------


## E-learner

I'm confused.
"Legal English" ... is designed *to be understand* by any English speaking attorney..."
I don't recognize this constraction (in bold). What is it? Shouldn't it be "understood"?

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## challenger

To the question about how to know whether you're reading a Chinese translator's piece of work...I recommend reading something in English that depends more largely on articles than normal. Plato's Meno, for example. You would have to read it in translation, but I don't think the translator would be Chinese.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> I'm confused.
> "Legal English" ... is designed *to be understand* by any English speaking attorney..."
> I don't recognize this constraction (in bold). What is it? Shouldn't it be "understood"?

 Indeed it should be. I am betting Professor Dobry is kicking himself right now   ::

----------


## Dobry

> I very much doubt that an American wouldn't pass a British exam or vice versa. It's the same bloody language, just with regional variations. It's 99% mutually intelligible. Bob's your uncle? What the heck does that mean? But you certainly know, as some guy from Chicago, that it's just an exasperation. As much as it pains me, I think Scotcher's definition is right on. I may not understand every single word a Brit ever udders, but I certainly understand the overwhelming majority of what he said -- certainly enough to pass your proficency exam. Dom DeLuise, now that's another matter...

 Бармалей, 
I'm not talking about a TEFL exam, to enter and study at University... do you know what the Proficiency Exam is?   
Most English speakers would fail it.  It is to professional translators/interpreters and professors, what the Medical Boards, Bar exams or Accounting exams are to doctors, attorneys and accountants.   
It's English at a Ph.D level.  I doubt that I could pass it without about 6 months of intensive study.   
For example... if I wanted to teach at MGU as an Academic in Russian and Russian linguistics (senior tenured professor/researcher)... I would need to be able to pass Russia's version of the Proficiency Exam.   
The Proficiency Exam is not about fluency... it's about intimate and extremely detailed knowledge of the grammar, roots, usage, vocabulary, etc... again, at the level of a Ph.D. or _simultaneous translator_ (such as U.N. and diplomatic translators). 
British English does not match American English... trust me, it simply doesn't... there are many significant differences.

----------


## Dobry

[quote=kalinka_vinnie] 

> I'm confused.
> "Legal English" ... is designed *to be understand* by any English speaking attorney..."
> I don't recognize this constraction (in bold). What is it? Shouldn't it be "understood"?

 Indeed it should be. I am betting Professor Dobry is kicking himself right now   :: [/quote:2hrb8fkf]   ::   ::   ::   
Yep, that was my mistake!!!  I was doing three things at once as I wrote this, and I didn't notice.  Sorry guys!

----------


## Dobry

> Firstly, you are talking total nonsense Dobry. When an American speaks grammaticaly correct American English, reasonably intelligent people from other parts of the English speaking world do not hear errors, no matter how much the vocabulary, syntax or grammar differs from their own 'standard'. They are speaking 'perfect' English. 
> Secondly, it is quite clear from the context what Ramil meant by 'perfect', and your nit-picking over that definition is adding absolutely nothing whatsoever to the discussion.

 I disagree Scotcher. 
First, YOU don't know what you are saying... there are several grammatical differences between British and American English.  Not big differences.  And yes, the understanding remains usually clear.  But an Oxford professor would want an American exchange student to use Oxford grammar, and would penalize a student for using American grammar.  I know this first-hand, because my ex-wife did research work at Oxford for a semester... her professor/tutor/Don often corrected her American grammar, and she was a Ph.D candidate in English literature, from the State Linguistics Institute in Minsk.  Her American grammar is "perfect".  She comes from a family of diplomatic "simultaneous translators" - Russian/English.  
My own opinion is that there is _no such thing as "perfect" English_.  You are speaking of relatives, not absolutes.  When I think of "perfect", I think of absolutes. 
And you didn't answer my question of who speaks "perfect" Russian. 
My point is that all languages are relative, to location, culture, even village-by-village. 
There are many Academics who would say the only "true" or "perfect" Spanish, for example, is the Spanish that is determined by the State Language Institute in Madrid... therefore, most Spaniards don't speak "perfect" Spanish. 
I am NOT saying I agree with this opinion... but I think you are closing your mind to other opinions and thoughts.  You first must define exactly what you mean by "error".   Then, define exactly what you mean by "perfect".   
If you are in a technical writing class, writing a research paper in Russian... and you write the paper using colloquial (street) Russian, instead of a University level of Russian... do you think your professor will say, "_Good job, Scotcher... you wrote in "perfect" Russian!  It's "perfect" for the street!  Now... get out of my office and write it again!!!"   _ ??? 
C'mon Scotcher.  Get real.    ::

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## Dobry

> 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 
> ...

 HAHAHA!!! 
Thanks, charlestonian.  Yep... where my family comes from... Arkansas... this is "perfect" English.     ::   ::   ::    ::   
Scotcher... did you understand this one?    ::

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## gRomoZeka

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

----------


## Dobry

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

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

----------


## scotcher

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.

----------


## Ramil

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.

----------


## adoc

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.

----------


## Chuvak

> 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.

----------


## Dobry

> 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.

   ::

----------


## Dobry

> 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.

----------


## Lampada

> 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!   ::

----------


## Ramil

> 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.

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## Ramil

> 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.  ::

----------


## VendingMachine

> 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".

----------


## VendingMachine

> 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.

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## Layne

> 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.   ::

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

1: You avatar has to be a certain size in kilobytes and pixels. Look at the profile for more information (I believe no larger than 4 kb)
2: When replying use the "Img" button, then insert the LINK to the picture 
3: Copy and paste is your friend. Quote reply, then copy the [...quote] part and reuse it. don't forget to add the [.../quote]

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## basurero

> scotcher is right. I used the term 'Perfect English' just to put _ stress on the fact that I want to find_ preferably interesting texts to read which may be considered 'Perfect' in the 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 _ correct language usage.
> I may read a text written by native an English speaker but I wouldn't know whether his speech was correct or not. I have no criteria.

  

> My thought exactly so I asked because I needed _(some) advice.   
> Russian grammar is tolerant to such things so most _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 _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.  
> Thanks Dobry - you're really Добрый  An answer I've been waiting for.   
> That's another question I needed an answer to. 
> P.S. You've forgot to mention _ Chinese English. I could curse for a week about it.

  

> I've never encountered these two. _sheer luck maybe.

 Bloody articles man! I'm so glad there aren't any in Russian.

----------


## Ramil

> Bloody articles man! I'm so glad there aren't any in Russian.

 Basurero - you're killing all hopes in me  ::  Thanks anyway.

----------


## gRomoZeka

Great list of books and great advice, *Dobry*. Thank you very much.
I think, that when ESL learners ask for help in studying "perfect English" they just mean the want to talk as grammatically correct as possible, and they want their English to be colourful, descriptive and with good turn of phrase.
I believe the books you mentioned will help. 
I still can't choose what version of English should I learn - BE or AE. What do you think? Traditional answer is "learn the version of the country you're going to live in/to visit etc." But I'm not going anywhere, so... That advice doesn't help. 
How go you think is it possible for average ESL learner (not a genius) to learn AE and BE equally good and just switch between them when needed? 
I know main differencies in spelling between these two, some differencies in grammar and quite a lot pairs of words that mean the same in UK and USA (like elevator/lift, underwear/pants etc.) because at school we studied British English and watching movies I spoiled it with american slang a bit. So now my English is a horrible mess.   ::  
Should I try to "separate" BE and AE or just to "forget" one of them?

----------


## Dogboy182

It doesnt even really matter. If you speak American english, south african english, or hong kong english, or that god forsaken Canadian "english"... English is english and you'll be understood where ever it is that you go. 
Im American, and i'd advise you to learn british english. 
1, Because, when you go to britian, people wont think you're a stupid wanker.
2, When you go to American, people will LOVE your accent! And they will ask you if you are from luxemburg! 
If you learn american english, 
1, no one in america will care
2, no one in the rest of the world will like you.

----------


## basurero

Yeh lol. It annoys me when foreigners learn American english for no reason. I mean, being born with an accent like that's fair enough, but who would CHOOSE to speak like that?  ::

----------


## gRomoZeka

LOL
Thanks, guys.   ::  But I'm afraid I'll not live long enough to develop natural British accent, and I've heard on a few occasions that Russians with their bad English accent are hilarious.   ::  
PS. Please fell free to correct my mistakes.   ::

----------


## Ramil

I like English pronounciation more. But people say when they hear me talking English that my accent is rather German than Russian. Maybe this is a consequence of my attempts to learn German in school.
I even speak a little. Ich heisse Ramil, Ich lebe in der Soviet Union in die Stadt Moskau.  ::

----------


## gRomoZeka

> But people say when they hear me talking English that my accent is rather German than Russian.

 Probably people think Russian accent means rolling "r" and terrible "th" sound.   ::  My pronouncation is far from native speaker's but usually people say it's not "russian". Once I was even told I sound like a Canadian. I wonder what does it mean?   ::

----------


## Vincent Tailors

My brother-in-law says I also speak more like a German than an Englishman.  ::  But I'm constantly trying to get rid of those "r" and a habit of saying "Щ" instead of "Ш" in for example word "shиt".

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## Dogboy182

> Originally Posted by Ramil  But people say when they hear me talking English that my accent is rather German than Russian.   Probably people think Russian accent means rolling "r" and terrible "th" sound.   My pronouncation is far from native speaker's but usually people say it's not "russian". Once I was even told I sound like a Canadian. I wonder what does it mean?

 
Canadians talk like their mom and dad are also their brother and sister. 
If you've ever seen the simpsons on english, Ned flanders is a good example of how canadians talk.

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## Dobry

> It doesnt even really matter. If you speak American english, south african english, or hong kong english, or that god forsaken Canadian "english"... English is english and you'll be understood where ever it is that you go. 
> Im American, and i'd advise you to learn british english. 
> 1, Because, when you go to britian, people wont think you're a stupid wanker.
> 2, When you go to American, people will LOVE your accent! And they will ask you if you are from luxemburg! 
> If you learn american english, 
> 1, no one in america will care
> 2, no one in the rest of the world will like you.

   ::  
Dogboy makes a good argument for studying British English.
I agree with him, for the same reasons.   
Actually, it also depends how you will use English.  Mainly for conversation?  Or academic research?  Or business?   
If for business, University, or for technical work, then I would suggest AE, as British business and technical English is a little "off" at times, and AE is the most common for international business, the computer industry, manufacturing, etc. 
If mainly for general use, reading and conversation, then AE or BE, yes Dogboy is right.  Most English speakers will understand you for these purposes.  Vocabulary and usage, especially with books, are the major differences between AE and BE.   
Your accent and pronounciation will be a big factor though in being understood wherever you are.  And if you study BE with a teacher who has a strong accent, and you develop the same strong accent, then you may have difficulty being understood.  I have seen this problem happen many times.  I can barely understand some Irishmen, or highlands people from Scotland, and from Birmingham, U.K.  A friend of mine, one of the best English grammar teachers I know in Madrid, is from rural Scotland.  She is an excellent and brilliant teacher, but her accent is so strong I (also her intermediate/upper-intermediate students) often have to ask her to repeat herself... several times sometimes, to understand her.  So, she will often teach beginning students grammar, working together with an American teacher for good, clear pronounciation. 
I've had many foreign speakers say that AE is actually much easier to understand than BE, because AE's accents tend to be milder than BE, except in a few selected areas... such as Charlestonian's trailer park.    ::   ::   
Anyway, good luck.    ::

----------


## Dogboy182

> Originally Posted by Ramil  I like English pronounciation more. But people say when they hear me talking English that my accent is rather German than Russian. Maybe this is a consequence of my attempts to learn German in school.
> I even speak a little. Ich heisse Ramil, Ich lebe in der Soviet Union in die Stadt Moskau.    (задущевна так паёт): Союз нерушимый республик свабодных!!!!

 Сплатила навеки великая русь... 
@Dobry,
Thanks for tha props!

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## Vincent Tailors

I agree with VendingMachine, but would like to add that it's not worth even mentioning. At least, the Yoda syndrome cannot exist in Russian.

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## Бармалей

> Originally Posted by gRomoZeka        Originally Posted by Ramil  But people say when they hear me talking English that my accent is rather German than Russian.   Probably people think Russian accent means rolling "r" and terrible "th" sound.   My pronouncation is far from native speaker's but usually people say it's not "russian". Once I was even told I sound like a Canadian. I wonder what does it mean?     
> Canadians talk like their mom and dad are also their brother and sister. 
> If you've ever seen the simpsons on english, Ned flanders is a good example of how canadians talk.

 Terrence and Phillip are much funnier than Ned though...Pronouncing "about" like "aboot" just cracks me up for no reason whatsover.

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## Бармалей

> BTW, I am from the South y'all.

 O RLY!?!?! 
The George Jones icon didn't give it away...That photo must be circa 1492 or so I think.  ::

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## Dogboy182

The south will fall again!

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## Dogboy182

I just think its funny when people say that the south will rise again, because, I can't seem to find a time when it ever rose in the first place?!

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## Dogboy182

And then you lost!

----------


## gRomoZeka

> And the first shot of the Civil War was fired right here, in Charleston, South Carolina!

 Yeah, a major achievement...   ::

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## Dogboy182

Thats a book of fiction about a love story and probly has very little to do with real life. 
Which brings me to my next question about the south. Howcome it seems like people from the south are the most patriotic to be american, but at the same time they want to be their own country? 
sometimes the south seems so backwards.

----------


## Бармалей

> Which brings me to my next question about the south. Howcome it seems like people from the south are the most patriotic to be american, but at the same time they want to be their own country?

 I think there are about 3 people who actually want independence today. I'm not sure I remember anyone campaigning on that last presidential election (there were people campaigning as communists though).

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## Dobry

> Originally Posted by gRomoZeka        Originally Posted by charlestonian  And the first shot of the Civil War was fired right here, in Charleston, South Carolina!   Yeah, a major achievement...     It is. Many southerners in general, and charlestonians in particular, are proud of their herritage. Many still display the Confederate battle flag. Read "Gone with the Wind," or go see the movie.

 Charlestonian is right.  There is a loyalty and pride in most Southerners.  Also, it is very important to say that the war was mainly over economics, not over slavery.  Most Confederate soldiers during the war, came from poor farm families, with no slaves.  But there was the idea with most Confederates that the "North" (the Federal government) was trying to interfere with their personal rights, and the rights of each Southern State... come into the South and take control away from the individual States... take your rights, as a citizen, away from you... which many believed to be a clear violation of the original U.S. Constitution. 
This was an important reason that General Robert E. Lee, the senior commander of the Confederacy, abandoned his military command in the Federal government, and became the main military leader of the Confederacy... and his loyalty to his home State of Virginia. 
Very complex questions... and most of these difficulties that caused the war between the North and the South were economic and/or political. 
My mother comes from a "neutral" Kansas heritage, but my father comes from the Old South... deep forests of southern Arkansas, near the Louisiana border.  My great-great-grandfather's home (near Fordyce, Arkansas) is still remembered in the legends of the Civil War...  
...his home was agreed to by North and South Generals as a "no-man's land" (absolutely neutral) and served as a hospital to both Confederate, and Federal soldiers.  My great-great-grandfather Marks refused to fight for the Confederacy... but both North and South honored this "cease-fire" on his land, so that the wounded, from both sides, could get medical treatment.  And my great-great-grandfather remained protected... neither North or South bothered him, his family, or damaged his farm or mill, because of this treaty between North and South commanders.  So, he and his family survived the war, without much difficulty. 
There was an important battle fought near his land... _the Battle of Marks Mill. _ My great-great-grandfather's grain mill.    
But, in our family history, we had ancestors fight, and die, on both sides... North and South. 
To understand America, I think it's important to understand the Civil War.  To paraphrase the American historian Shelby Foote, "The Civil War changed us forever, and defined us as a Nation."

----------


## Lampada

> Originally Posted by Dogboy182  Thats a book of fiction about a love story and probly has very little to do with real life. 
> Which brings me to my next question about the south. Howcome it seems like people from the south are the most patriotic to be american, but at the same time they want to be their own country? 
> sometimes the south seems so backwards.    Your English is rather strange... Where are you from?

 А ты определенно из Одессы:  отвечаешь вопросом на вопрос.   ::

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## charlestonian

> Originally Posted by charlestonian        Originally Posted by Dogboy182  Thats a book of fiction about a love story and probly has very little to do with real life. 
> Which brings me to my next question about the south. Howcome it seems like people from the south are the most patriotic to be american, but at the same time they want to be their own country? 
> sometimes the south seems so backwards.    Your English is rather strange... Where are you from?   А ты определенно из Одессы:  отвечаешь вопросом на вопрос.

 That I 'is"  ::

----------


## Бармалей

> ...his home was agreed to by North and South Generals as a "no-man's land" (absolutely neutral) and served as a hospital to both Confederate, and Federal soldiers.  My great-great-grandfather Marks refused to fight for the Confederacy... but both North and South honored this "cease-fire" on his land, so that the wounded, from both sides, could get medical treatment.  And my great-great-grandfather remained protected... neither North or South bothered him, his family, or damaged his farm or mill, because of this treaty between North and South commanders.  So, he and his family survived the war, without much difficulty.

 That's a fascinating story. My question would be this: how was this neutrality made clear to a commander who was from out of the area? If for example, a union army from another state were for some reason come to his home and find 5 confederates in bed and no union troops at that particular time, wouldn't they be a bit suspicious/upset? Was there some sort of an actual written contract (that would have to be an incredible piece of paper to have!), or did all the locals just know that to be the case, or did they simply take him at his word?

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## Бармалей

> Another piece of history. The Confederate HL "Hunley" became the first submarine ever

 It was also the first submarine to sink itself and actually sustained higher fatalities than its victim. Oops...

----------


## Dobry

> Originally Posted by Dobry  ...his home was agreed to by North and South Generals as a "no-man's land" (absolutely neutral) and served as a hospital to both Confederate, and Federal soldiers.  My great-great-grandfather Marks refused to fight for the Confederacy... but both North and South honored this "cease-fire" on his land, so that the wounded, from both sides, could get medical treatment.  And my great-great-grandfather remained protected... neither North or South bothered him, his family, or damaged his farm or mill, because of this treaty between North and South commanders.  So, he and his family survived the war, without much difficulty.   That's a fascinating story. My question would be this: how was this neutrality made clear to a commander who was from out of the area? If for example, a union army from another state were for some reason come to his home and find 5 confederates in bed and no union troops at that particular time, wouldn't they be a bit suspicious/upset? Was there some sort of an actual written contract (that would have to be an incredible piece of paper to have!), or did all the locals just know that to be the case, or did they simply take him at his word?

 I don't know all the details... but here is the story that has been passed down in my family... I don't think any "paper treaty" still exists, but in the military journals of the Federal commander, which are kept in the State Archives, he details the "truce" that was agreed upon by both sides to allow the Marks land to be "neutral", and used for medical care. 
There also is a big granite block sitting in the family cemetery, near Fordyce, that details what happened... 
He was well-known in the area as the grain miller, and so, he had a lot of "weight" so to speak with the populace.  The Marks' were a big family, with his brothers owning a lot of land around that area.  And although he did not own slaves (that is another family story), he was wealthy (compared to others living around him), with some political power, and he owned a big 2-story mansion... big enough to be a make-shift hospital.   
When the war reached the area, my great-great-grandfather offered to the Confederate commander to use his mansion as a hospital for the wounded, *IF* the Confederate commander agreed to allow Federal soldiers to be treated also... so, the Confederate commander and Federal commander parlayed, and agreed that the Marks estate was a "cease-fire" zone, and a hospital... for both sides.  No shots would be fired and no soldier would be captured while on the Marks land, by either side. 
One reason the Confederate commander agreed to this, and you need to understand this... this was a poor area of the South, without many resources or supplies to take care of the wounded.  (Also, there is an _unwritten_ "Code of Conduct"... part of our culture in the South... among most Southerners, that is different from Northerners, even today... I think Charlestonian understands what I mean.) 
The Federal commander in his journal also echoes this... supplies and medical treatment were very limited for the North's soldiers also, this far south. 
So, it was a humanitarian decision from both sides, and both sides desperately needed it, to have a "neutral zone", for safety and medical treatment.  
This all may sound strange... but it was a strange war.

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## Lampada

> Originally Posted by Бармалей        Originally Posted by charlestonian  Another piece of history. The Confederate HL "Hunley" became the first submarine ever   It was also the first submarine to sink itself and actually sustained higher fatalities than its victim. Oops...   If you are trying to pop my bubble, it is not working

 Ты часто с дискуссии на личности переходишь. Нехорошо-с.   ::

----------


## charlestonian

---

----------


## Бармалей

> So, it was a humanitarian decision from both sides, and both sides desperately needed it, to have a "neutral zone", for safety and medical treatment.  
> This all may sound strange... but it was a strange war.

 Fascinating story; thanks for sharing!  ::

----------

