[Grammar] Grammatically right?

[coolfool]

The whole sentence is as follows:

Brush your teeth first, because the two things I can think of that are worse than a bad style are bad breath and bad manners!

I think there're improperly two ares without proper and and that or which.

Can anyone lend me a helping hand? Thanks so much.

 

[emsr2d2]

The whole sentence is as follows:

Brush your teeth first, because the two things I can think of that are worse than a bad style are bad breath and bad manners!

I think there're improperly two ares without proper and and that or which.

Can anyone lend me a helping hand? Thanks so much.

The sentence is mostly fine (apart from "a bad style" which should not have an article and an unnecessary comma). "That" and "which" are optional. I have put them in brackets below.

- Brush your teeth first because the two things [that] I can think of [which] are worse than bad style are bad breath and bad manners.

The word "are" is required twice. It might help you to look at the sentence using a different word order to see why both are used.
Bad breath and bad manners are the two things [that] I can think of [which] are worse than bad style.

 

[coolfool]

1. My understanding is a sentence like A is B is C, unlike A is A is A, isn't acceptable. If you say yah, there's no argument whatsoever. If you do nah, let's see the following.

2. The whole sentence is
Brush your teeth first, because the two things I can think of that are worse than a bad style are bad breath and bad manners!
The part in question is
the two things I can think of that are worse than a bad style are bad breath and bad manners!

3. Let's let
A = the two things
B = I can think of
C = worse than a bad style
D = bad breath and bad manners!

4. To put it simply at first, let's get rid of B temporarily.

5. If the pattern is A that is C is D or A, which is C, is D, it becomes
the two things that are worse than a bad style are bad breath and bad manners!
or
the two things, which are worse than a bad style, are bad breath and bad manners!

6. If the pattern is A is C that/which is D or A is C, which is D, it becomes
the two things are worse than a bad style that/which are bad breath and bad manners!
or
the two things are worse than a bad style, which are bad breath and bad manners!

7. If the pattern is A is C and D, it becomes
the two things are worse than a bad style and (are) bad breath and bad manners!

8. Now, let's add B to the above sentence and see what we can get.

9. If the pattern is A that B and is C is D or A, which B and is C, is D, it becomes
the two things that I can think of and are worse than a bad style are bad breath and bad manners!
or
the two things, which I can think of and are worse than a bad style, are bad breath and bad manners!

10. If the pattern is A B is C that/which is D or A B is C, which is D, it becomes
the two things (that) I can think of are worse than a bad style that/which are bad breath and bad manners!
or
the two things (that) I can think of are worse than a bad style, which are bad breath and bad manners!

11. If the pattern is A B is C and D, it becomes
the two things (that) I can think of are worse than a bad style and (are) bad breath and bad manners!

12. To be advised, if any.

 

[Tdol]

11. If the pattern is A B is C and D, it becomes
the two things (that) I can think of are worse than a bad style and (are) bad breath and bad manners!

This is wrong- and is incorrect, because the two things = breath + manners not bad style + breath and manners. The relative pronoun can be omitted here, so the original is fine, though you can say the two things that too.

 

[coolfool]

I'm wondering if well-bred, well-read native English speakers would ever write something like
A I can think of you can't think of he can think of she can't think of that is B and C and D is E and F and G.
if I'm allowed here to exaggerate the original sentence?

 

[5jj]

I'm wondering if well-bred, well-read native English speakers would ever write something like
A I can think of you can't think of he can think of she can't think of that is B and C and D is E and F and G.

No. It's incomprehensible.

 

[emsr2d2]

I'm wondering if well-bred, well-read native English speakers would ever write something like
A I can think of you can't think of he can think of she can't think of that is B and C and D is E and F and G.
if I'm allowed here to exaggerate the original sentence?

That's not exaggeration. It's gibberish.