Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.

Ex Input:
I wrote this sentence: Why wouldn't it be valid? --and I realized that without the contraction it becomes: Why would it not be valid? As opposed to 'why would not it be valid,' as the contraction would imply. What's going on here? Why can I contract across the middle word this way? Or, to put it the other way, why can't I 'de-contract' this without moving the not over by a word?.

Ex Output:
Even though the standard term for these combinations of an auxiliary + -n't is 'contractions', grammatically they act like single, indivisible words*; rather than like two words slurred together (though that was evidently their historical origin). This single word is a auxiliary, so it goes in the normal position for an auxiliary in an interrogative sentence: after the question-word and before the subject. Why wouldn't it be valid? Question word - auxiliary - subject - [rest of sentence] When you use 'would not,' on the other hand, you have two words: the auxiliary 'would', and the distinct word 'not' (a word that doesn't fit very well into the general part-of-speech categories). The auxiliary again goes into the normal position for an auxiliary. The word 'not' has its own, different rules for where it goes in a sentence. Why would it not be valid? Question word - auxiliary - subject - [rest of sentence] *In fact, some linguists think the negative suffix in these words is best analyzed as an inflection in modern English, like the suffix '-s' used in third person.


Ex Input:
Is it ok to talk about 'personal PCs', in the sense of distinguishing it from a work PC? Or would it be regarded as a case of RAS Syndrome?.

Ex Output:
Though the word personal is repeated in the expansion 'personal personal computer', the two repetitions use different meanings of the same word. The first personal means 'owned or used by a specific single person' (definition 1 here), while the second indicates 'designed to be used by a single person' (definition 2 here, again). Both instances are required to convey the full idea and thus are not redundant. Consider the following examples spelled out in full: Personal PC: personal personal computer, (the usual case of a personal computer owned by a person) personal mainframe computer (I have a Cray in my bedroom), Public PC: public personal computer (a PC that is installed in a kiosk usable by anybody)


Ex Input:
In a scientific article, should I write '3m', '3 m', '3 meters', or '3 [meters]'?.

Ex Output:

This guide at the NIST site is a good place to start. In particular, you should write '3 m' as in 'The bar is 3 m long.'