Please advise how to better or emend https://ell.stackexchange.com/q/38683/8712 for want of its reopening? I beware of 'requests for resources" but would appreciate help on the names of fr what I should be seaching.
Update to 200_success's answer: I ask NOT about resources, but about terms that describe frequent, but more understated, nuanced grammatical errors in English? What are they called?
I think you would have been better off to provide a few specific examples that fall under what you call:
trickier, but more nuanced grammatical errors
By the way, I understand that you are not asking for references themselves, but for a word that would describe "tricky and more nuanced grammatical errors" and could therefore be used a search term when seeking such references. I've retagged the question accordingly. However, I won't support a move to reopen the question until some specific examples are provided; I think it's too vague as is.
gotcha grammar would help you refine your search very well.
The question was tagged resources, and I therefore interpreted it as a request for resources (which is off-topic, according to the Help Center.
(There are 8 other questions tagged resources, which are all off-topic, or should be. To prevent proliferation of such questions, I propose that these questions all be deleted, and the resources tag abolished and blacklisted.)
Your question, despite being tagged resources, is about self-learning. For that, there is a learning tag. That would have avoided some miscommunication.
Nevertheless, as it currently stands, I don't think it's a good question, even if it is not directly asking for resources. It's either too broad or unclear what you're asking — as four other users who voted to close the question agree.
The problem with this type of question is that there can be no way that it is not about resources. In the question itself, you have explicitly asked for references.
One of the issues is that I don't think there have been any studies into what you would call errors committed by native speakers, as generally, the language is defined by their (collective) usage. Speakers don't speak in a way that they believe is ungrammatical unless they are using it to make a point (or perhaps to play the role of someone who would speak in that fashion).
Generally, references that aren't targeted at language learners take native speaker usage to be grammatical, and so are extremely unlikely to describe them as errors - more often, they're called "features" of a dialect or variant of a language.
Finally, the criteria that you have provided are too vague and broad - by whose criteria would things not be "ordinary faults"? You're wasting everyone's time by defining what you want negatively. If I order a coffee, I say I want a cappuccino, not that I don't want a cup without milk, without froth, without cocoa powder, and without sugar.
If this question were to somehow be reopened, I would expect it to be a request for information, not resources (that is, a question with a substantial answer, not a list) and for it to be positively-defined, so we know what to look for.
Note: the existence of negatively-defined criteria in open questions is not a good enough argument to have it here. Where in other questions the scope is more limited, what you're asking for is a google search that excludes some arbitrary criteria you have established. Which is too broad.
