You clearly aren’t from an “english is the third language” country. I would not write like that but also I didn’t notice the grammar errors until they were pointed out, my brain filtered them through.
I did intend to say that I filtered the grammatical errors through, meaning that my brain was reading the pure meaning. You said that I allowed the errors through unfiltered, which is incorrect in my interpretation of the sentence since that would imply I would not be able to parse the meaning correctly, having to deal with grammar mistakes.
Think about it, if you try to eat a porridge with chunks, you need to do extra effort processing the chunks through, hey spend time with them. But if you filter the chunks through, you can process the porridge faster. So no, your correction is incorrect actually, I meant what I said.
It’s not that deep though, which is why I said that it really doesn’t matter how you want to describe it.
PD: Also, the way you formed that sentence is annoying. Why don’t you explain the difference yourself instead of expecting others to do all the legwork in a conversation? You ask if I recognise THE difference, but there are many differences between those sentences in a given context, it depends on how you interpret it. It’s low key rude.
You are not understanding my sentence. I said that my brain was filtering the grammar errors for me.
Your statement is correct but the brain IS filtering stuff for you, all the time. Every sensory signal is filtered through your subconscious mind before it reaches your conscious mind.
Saying that the brain filters grammar errors is a completely correct statement, I’m really not getting why you are saying that you can’t filter stuff by not filtering them, it’s a correct statement but it just doesn’t apply.
Your written tone is very condescending for someone that is missing the original point, come on.
Oh my god, I think I finally got your comment. You meant that the sentence “filtered it through” is incorrect for the intent of filtering something, the world “through” should be eliminated. Yes? Because filtering something through is letting it in little by little, while my intent was to say that the errors weren’t being let in since they were filtered subconsciously. That was what you meant?
Please do confirm if this was your original intent, I’m very confused. If it was low key damn you for not being more clear but also sorry for misunderstanding and making a mountain out of a molehill (I think I used this idiom correctly).
It’s/its is also common mistake with non-native speakers.
The really obvious one is using of instead of instead of have. Would of. Should of. Could of. From would’ve, should’ve, could’ve. Non-native speakers will rarely if ever make that mistake.
Non-native speakers tend to make mistakes with “its” vs “it’s” because they learn that in English the rule for when to after a “subject” put an apostrophe followed by an “s” is when you’re talking about something that subject has, but this case is an exception to that rule since " it " followed " 's " stands for " it is " whilst talking about something that " it " has is written " its ".
I mean, you can memorize there’s an exception to the rule for this case, but if you’re not paying enough attention when writting it’s easy to make a mistake by unthinkingly following the rule as usual even though in this case it doesn’t apply, and even if you re-read the text to check if it’s alright, it’s easy to miss it because you kinda have the right meaning in your mind so you read what you meant to write rather than what you wrote plus they’re both valid forms so neither stands out as a spelling mistake even when misused.
Yeah, I just assumed that English wasn’t the writers first language.
I only someone could invent some kind of computerised grammar checking utility. ;)
You clearly aren’t from an “english is the third language” country. I would not write like that but also I didn’t notice the grammar errors until they were pointed out, my brain filtered them through.
“filtered them through” < “allowed them through, unfiltered” 🙇🏼♂️
However you wanna describe it, the point is that we tend to look for the meaning behind the words because we are used to hearing badly spoken English.
You do recognize the difference, though, regardless of “however [I] wanna describe it”, yes? 😅
I did intend to say that I filtered the grammatical errors through, meaning that my brain was reading the pure meaning. You said that I allowed the errors through unfiltered, which is incorrect in my interpretation of the sentence since that would imply I would not be able to parse the meaning correctly, having to deal with grammar mistakes.
Think about it, if you try to eat a porridge with chunks, you need to do extra effort processing the chunks through, hey spend time with them. But if you filter the chunks through, you can process the porridge faster. So no, your correction is incorrect actually, I meant what I said.
It’s not that deep though, which is why I said that it really doesn’t matter how you want to describe it.
PD: Also, the way you formed that sentence is annoying. Why don’t you explain the difference yourself instead of expecting others to do all the legwork in a conversation? You ask if I recognise THE difference, but there are many differences between those sentences in a given context, it depends on how you interpret it. It’s low key rude.
You’re certainly allowed to feel your feelings, though they don’t change the simple fact that “filtering” by not filtering is literally impossible.
Also, the aforementioned difference is “lose” vs. “loose”, fellow anon. Try not to knot your knickers this time. 😅🙃
You are not understanding my sentence. I said that my brain was filtering the grammar errors for me.Your statement is correct but the brain IS filtering stuff for you, all the time. Every sensory signal is filtered through your subconscious mind before it reaches your conscious mind.Saying that the brain filters grammar errors is a completely correct statement, I’m really not getting why you are saying that you can’t filter stuff by not filtering them, it’s a correct statement but it just doesn’t apply.Your written tone is very condescending for someone that is missing the original point, come on.Oh my god, I think I finally got your comment. You meant that the sentence “filtered it through” is incorrect for the intent of filtering something, the world “through” should be eliminated. Yes? Because filtering something through is letting it in little by little, while my intent was to say that the errors weren’t being let in since they were filtered subconsciously. That was what you meant?
Please do confirm if this was your original intent, I’m very confused. If it was low key damn you for not being more clear but also sorry for misunderstanding and making a mountain out of a molehill (I think I used this idiom correctly).
There’s a lot of stuff where native speakers make more mistakes than people who learn the language later in life, though. Not just with English.
It’s vs. its is a classic, which is written very differently in many other languages. I suspect they mix them up less when they switch to English.
It’s/its is also common mistake with non-native speakers.
The really obvious one is using of instead of instead of have. Would of. Should of. Could of. From would’ve, should’ve, could’ve. Non-native speakers will rarely if ever make that mistake.
Oh, yes! That’s a much better example, thanks.
Non-native speakers tend to make mistakes with “its” vs “it’s” because they learn that in English the rule for when to after a “subject” put an apostrophe followed by an “s” is when you’re talking about something that subject has, but this case is an exception to that rule since " it " followed " 's " stands for " it is " whilst talking about something that " it " has is written " its ".
I mean, you can memorize there’s an exception to the rule for this case, but if you’re not paying enough attention when writting it’s easy to make a mistake by unthinkingly following the rule as usual even though in this case it doesn’t apply, and even if you re-read the text to check if it’s alright, it’s easy to miss it because you kinda have the right meaning in your mind so you read what you meant to write rather than what you wrote plus they’re both valid forms so neither stands out as a spelling mistake even when misused.
Also a lot of folks just won’t bother with’ especially on mobile