I do this trick sometimes. Huge thanks for your contribution. If I could reduce number of mistakes at least a little bit, that would be sooooooo cool. Main thing is to focus for now. I certainly have to work some more with your post.

“... and I do the search work myself.”

lapka, the complement and adjunct rule for order was exactly what I was trying to figure out

Regarding means/place/time order, I know that's a rule, but I'm not sure how helpful it is. For example, I'd say:

I'm walking to the store [place] as quickly as I can [means].

I'd also say:

I'm walking to the store [place] right now [time] as quickly as I can [means]; but "I'm walking to the store as quickly as I can right now" is also okay.

I don't know if there is a rule that explains why the order can go place/time/means in the above example. I read that, with verbs involving movement we put place before means, but that rule wouldn't cover something like:

I'm watching TV in the living room [place] right now [time] with the volume turned up [means] so I didn't hear you.

Usually time does come last, but I can think of plenty of examples when it doesn't, or when it doesn't matter.

Lapka,

and I do the search work myself

then maybe someone

Both "to start to care" and "to start caring" are fine. The explanation in your link is incomplete. In continuous tenses, "start" is always followed by the infinitive. For example, in the continuous present:

I am starting to try to write more carefully. correct
I am starting trying to write more carefully. wrong

But in non-continuous tenses "start" can be followed by the infinitive or the gerund. For example in the simple present:

I start to read 2p2 as soon as I wake up. correct
I start reading 2p2 as soon as I wake up. correct

Dear Lapka, please tell us you will never become shy about posting just because your English isn’t absolutely perfect.

Yep, or if it is understood by the reader which one is meant.

If there is genuinely only one of a thing in existence at all then it usually just has a proper noun (i.e. a name) which are mostly without "the". Like "Yorkshire", "Google" or "Lapka".

There are multiple internets (networks made up of smaller LAN and WAN networks connected together), for example the North Korean one, the ROW one etc. but if you think the other person is going to know which internet you mean you use "the". People not understanding this was the cause of the past incorrect convention of capitalizing the "I" in internet in spell checkers and newspapers as if it was the name of a specific thing.

One thing I do with beginners is practice getting them to ask/answer
"What colour is this/that ______?" as they point to stuff in the room. Then I get them to fold their arms and we practice "What colour is the _______?" which of course is only answerable if person asking has correctly used "the" on the assumption the other person knows which door, board, window is meant. The next step is to practice "What colour is a _______?" which only works where the thing has a typical or expected colour like "a banana", "a 20-euro banknote" etc. and the answer would be the same for some random instance (i.e. they can't ask "What colour is a table?").

Re: "start + to" or "start + ing". What rules native speakers are using is not something that AFAIK has been pinned down properly apart from what gregorio says about continuous tenses. If we look at google hits we can compare
"started to work" 159M vs "started working" 21M
"started to live" 18M vs "started living" 533K (so much heavier domination than in the previous case)
"started to cry" 6.5M vs "started crying" 7.6M so the "ing" form is slightly more common with this one.

and I've very occasionally observed new teachers sometimes correcting students when they say the "wrong" version for a situation.

For native speakers it’s english, for row it’s engrish

It really seems this is a struggle for Eastern Europeans.

I went to a bar on 5th Street last night. (There is more than one bar on 5th Street.)
I went to the bar on 5th Street last night. (There is only one bar on 5th Street.)
I went to 5th Street Bar last night. (The name of the bar is "5th Street Bar".)

Here is a list of verbs that are followed a gerund.

Here is a list of verbs that are followed by an infinitive.

Some verbs are on both lists, and some of them have the same meaning in each case, some have a different meaning in each case, and some can have either the same meaning or a different meaning depending on the context. That is not confusing at all.

I went to a city in Khazakstan to avoid Howard last week.

I went to the capitol of Kazakhstan to escape Howard last week.

I went to Khazakstan to avoid Howard last week.

FYP

I love to go to Khazakstan to avoid Howard.
I love going to Khazakstan to avoid Howard.

Both are correct.

greg,

Both may be correct, but the second one sounds much better.

What do you mean? They both say, "to avoid Howard."

The first structure "love to" "like to" "hate to" is used most often as the result of some kind of decision process but for other cases the "ing" form is much more frequent after those verbs (when we are talking about general likes, dislikes).

Yes but that doesn't give an explanation of why there would the radically different frequencies of "started + to" and "started + ing" depending what verb is next. It only offers that we would use "started to live" if we did not continue or complete the action

All three are wrong. Congrats.

Lek,

I have very little appreciation for specific grammar rules, so these may well be wrong. Please explain! I intended them to demonstrate the proper use of articles — “a” when it is one among several options, “the” when it is only one option, and no article when it is a proper name.

It sounds better to put "last week" before "to avoid Howard", and you need "from" after "escape".

I think there is a slight difference in meaning between the two options. Did lapka go to Khazakstan last week? Or was the escaping/avoiding done last week?

I’m fine with adding “from” but I don’t think it’s mandatory.

So your wording means she may have gone for the whole year just to avoid you for one week? Seems extreme...

Pretty sure I have never heard "escape" used in a similar context without "from".

Just spelling "Kazakhstan" and "capital" city (a capitol building is usually called a parliament building when it's in another country).

most boring 10K post ever?

I went to a city in Kazakhstan to avoid Howard last week. [I'm trying to avoid Howard for any number of reasons.]

I went to a city in Kazakhstan to escape from Howard last week. [Howard has me captive in some way -- either physically or otherwise, either seriously or in jest -- and I'm trying to get away. Probably in jest. It's implied that I interact with Howard regularly in some way.]

I went to a city in Kazakhstan to escape Howard last week. [To me this sounds crisper and more poetic. "Howard" is positioned more as an abstract entity of pain (compare it to "escape the cold" or "escape my fears") and is less likely to be a physical captor. One must escape the tyranny of Howard!]

I went to a city in Kazakhstan last week to avoid Howard. [Extra emphasis on why I went to Kazakhstan last week: to avoid Howard.]

I went to a city in Kazakhstan to avoid Howard last week. [The word "Howard" is still stressed. The ending sort of trails off here -- "last week" doesn't use its position at the end of the sentence as forcefully as "to avoid Howard" would. That gives "to avoid Howard" and "last week" more equal roles in the sentence. Less emphatic phrasing overall.]

Last week, I went to a city in Kazakhstan to avoid Howard. [Different rhythm. Emphasizes "last week" more.]

Lapka: What do you read? One of the best ways to improve your feel for how to put words together in English is to read a lot in English. Slowly too. Speed-reading doesn't count.

Sounds like a good undertitle for Howard.