Why am I getting such really easy stuff wrong even though I know better?

"Neither of those were in my head as a formal rule."

"That" or "Those" when talking about something someone else has said (usually when you're talking about what you said yourself too).

"was" rather than "has been" as you mean "at the time the other person spoke or you read it." rather than "right up till now". It's similar to "Really? I didn't know that!" (but I know it now you've said it.)

2 of 2 Both of those were .....
specific 1 of 2 One of those was ....
any 1 of 2 Either of those was ....
0 of 2 Neither of those was .... (sometimes people would say "were" here)

"I manage to find (the?) niches on the internet as well as in RL, where I am more or less well integrated,"

Still probably best without "the" because you don't find all of them, but you could use "the" and make it sound like there is a very limited number and you're basically finding them all.

Compare:
My brother is handsome so he always gets the girls.
My brother is handsome so he always gets girls.

(The first one sounds like all of the girls the speaker and his brother befriend end up with the brother and not the speaker. The second one sounds like a number of girls.)

The "where" part is specifying the niches, so:

I manage to find niches on the internet where I am ... (note no comma after internet).

Compare:

The man who won the marathon is standing over there. - The "who" clause specifies which man so has no commas.

My father, who is a politician, lives in London. - The "who" clause doesn't specify which father, it just adds an interesting aside which is semi-relevant to the sentence as a whole so it is separated with commas (or with a slight pause when speaking).

This difference is called defining and non-defining relative clauses. Apart from commas the other important thing about the difference is that we can start them with "that" in defining relative clauses (the man that won the marathon ...) but not in non-defining relative clauses (my father, that lives in London, ...).

Some people (including older versions of MS Word) also say that when referring to things "which" can only be used in non-defining clauses but I don't agree and pretty much nobody will have noticed the "mistake" 2 paragraphs up where I didn't use "that" after "aside", because it isn't a mistake.

Yes, it totally does. The 'two times' thing is about as 'foreign-sounding' as you can get. My college roommate's Edinburgh auntie's coalman Tommy (later known as 'Sean' when he became an actor) did not appear in a film called You Only Live Two Times.

Maybe old, but people are 'who'. Things and animals are 'that'.

I notice a disturbing trend where people are referred to as 'that' and pets are 'who'.

Feels like some Alex Jones-level dehumanizing **** to me.

you guys are going to turn lapka into Vic Ferrari

I haven't followed this thread (but knew of its existence). Came across a few lapka posts in other threads today and noticed a significant improvement. Applauds to both the teachers and the student.

I am trying to evaluate my posting more or less realistically. I don't believe that it has improved, especially not today, because basically everything I posted today just wanted to get out in the world and be shared without even an attempt of proof reading from my side. So I take owster's post in the OOT spirit as and additional kick in the right direction.

And HA! I get the reference to Vic Ferrari! Tx oT, 27 and everyone who gave me a lesson on "Taxi".

Lektor kills it like always. Coma with relative clauses is one of my long term problems. Relative clauses are always separated in Russian. But then people gave me few times hints that I put to many comas in general. So I started in total confusion just trying to reduce the number of comas. I understand this specific situation better now.

Lapka,

Comma

cry, cry cry......fkkfkkfkfkfkfkfkfkfk.

It is interesting, how such a short, completely innocent comment can cause such mix of crying and laughing.

Can't decide whether to go after Howard or Dids with this one.

Lapka,

You don't need a comma between "interesting" and "how". And "such mix" should be "such a mix".

Lapka, most of my posts on 2+2 are snarky remarks and one-liners, but my previous post was only genuinely positive.

It's refreshing to see someone asking oot for advice actually taking said advice and improving.

Neither one of them ever commented on my commas.
I noticed that. That makes your comment here even a bigger deal for me.

This thread has been running now for few days and it causes difficult mix of emotions in me. On one hand I believe that it brings something. I mean..... my brain would be totally weird if all your comments would slide without a trace from it. I read everything. And I really try to apply it.

On another hand I still repeat mistakes. I don't proof read everything. And I don't want to be disappointing or make people feel that they waste their time with me. I understand that we are on the internet. Basically everyone who corrects me (I so want to put a comma here) has made the experience of wasted effort on the internet. And someone, who makes a living with teaching English, (comma?) like Lektor has seen all levels of incompetence and all kinds of slow learners for sure. So I understand that I don't really shock or frustrate anyone. It is some kind of entertainment for majority. And I am perfectly fine with that.

Nevertheless this comment from owster is a big deal for me because it makes me feel like I am worth this time you all invested in correcting me.

"than now" is a mistake. its implied and thus redundant.

But I can do better with just a little bit of effort.
more effort
effort

Now a little story on the importance of idioms. Some of you may already have read it, but for others it might provide a little entertainment.

This next sentence needs restructuring. "I have used" implies that this is something you have done multiple times in the past. Also, you may want to indicate early on the setting of your miscommunication. Like, "In a forum post I said to someone "..."."

And sorry to continue piling on, but in the following story, you repeatedly change up your verb tenses. This is something native speakers mess up (myself included) very often but it is something be aware of you. You go from "present perfect" (have used) to "past simple" (said, interpreted, decided etc) and even use "present continuous" (am threatening). You likely want to stay with past simple.

In a forum post I said something along the lines of "I said XYZ just because I wanted to let you save the face". I meant "let you save face". The dude interpreted my mistake as a threat of physical violence. He decided that I wasthreatening to destroy his face in a physical fight and reported the post. The whole thing escalated and he refused to believe that it wasn't a threat to whoop his butt even after my explanation. After this story, I have a lot more respect for mods, (remove this comma) who must regulate all that crap and are still able torefrain from just banning everybody in sight.

"have to" is kind of ambiguous. It is technically correct but can be confusing and sound stilted in writing. In every day speaking it is better.

The "can" refrain doesnt make sense to me. You could use "must" here. Or maybe my above edit is more the sense you were getting at.

i think by "can" she means "are able to" in the sense of "can manage to". It would be better with "still" as "are still able to refrain from ...".

Tend to disagree about "must". Must is an exhortation or (applied to yourself) a resolution. Basically in both cases "must" is the source of the obligation and "have to" is commenting on the obligation. That's why "must" doesn't have a past tense as we can't send an obligation back in time.

Not that the division is as absolute as the above sounds.

"the other" wording, though that might be idiomatic.

As does everyone on the planet. You're at least aware of them and trying to correct them. Don't worry about the mistakes, it's the effort that means everything.

"proofread" one word. Which might be a nice irony?

Again, I don't think that's something you should be worried about. Anyone who would feel that way will just wander away.

(my ellipses of course)

Took away first comma, added one behind "Lektor". I'm not really sure on this though.

The point is, if people aren't interested in the subject you present, they'll skip it or leave. As long as it's interesting to you and at least one other person, it's worth keeping going. No one has any obligation here.

I see what you are saying about "must" vs "have to". still, I really think that "have to" is stilted in writing, esp when used in the same sentence construct as another "have". like, I have to have it. cmon, thats awful.

I have a lot more respect for mods who have to...


I think my point is that I would look for more specific wording than "have to". why do you/they have to? bc its their job? so, "whose job it is to...". bc they are forced to? bc it is critically necessary? then use must.

its really not a big deal though and it may be a way that I parse written sentences. it takes me a split second longer to read and it is necessary to focus a bit more.

for the most part lapka is a very good English writer bc she does use specific and precise words and that is far more important than grammar and word positioning.

You're mastering a new language. It's gonna take more than 12 days. Everyone understands that and besides, it's really fun for some of us to correct someone's English for some reason.

Please do pile on.
How about :
I have a lot more respect for mods who are doomed to regulate all that crap and are still capable .....

Totally yepp.

Huuuuuge tx! You totally understood what I wanted to say. Your post is super calming for ( against?) my anxiety.

I kind of speak/ deal with English a lot longer than 12 days. So it would be cool to do it better.

This thread makes me wonder how bad are my papers. Obviously I invest a lot more effort in my professional writing. But people have pointed out stuff... I had thought that I do word order in questions on autopilot correctly. I don't.

Lapka,

Most of your mistakes sound exactly like a non-native speaker speaking English, and they don’t sound dumb at all. You’re clearly picking up things from the comments here. You just reading, thinking about, and commenting on corrections here is making your English better, even though not all of those things immediately get fixed in your writing. Habits/patterns take time to break, practice makes perfect, etc. And don’t worry too much about how correct your posts here are. It’s a casual Internet forum, so a degree of more informal (and often technically mistake-filled) English is standard - and many times sounds more natural than perfect written English.