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.

Example Input: I know the two phrases have been adopted into the English lexicon, but raison d'etre and joie de vivre are phrases, not words. As phrases they certainly sound better in French than would their literal translation to English. Are there any 'more English' words or expressions for the same concepts? If not, doesn't that seem odd, or is it common enough for even borrowed phrases to supplant the development of a native term? (Further, it seems a little conspicuous that a language would lack native terms for such core concepts of the human experience!).
Example Output: We can trace most English words back to a time they were borrowed from another language: Image from Wikipedia.org The expressions raison d'etre and joie de vivre, are relatively recent, acquisitions: raison d'etre (n.) 'excuse for being,' 1864, first recorded in letter of J.S. Mill, from French raison d'etre, literally 'rational grounds for existence.' joie de vivre (n.) 1889, French, literally 'joy of living.' etymonline.com emphasis added I might add that the acquisition of joie de vivre seems incomplete, as the etymology lists it as French, rather than from French. It seems to have a reasonable chance of making a complete entry into English eventually, since we have always been quite hospitable toward elegant French expressions. I still italicize joie de vivre as a foreign expression in my writing, but it seems common enough that some might consider it pure English. As a reasonable intersection of the two French phrases, I like life force: noun The vital principle or animating force within living beings: The American Heritage® Roget's Thesaurus. The rational basis of our existence as living things is some life force that we do not yet fully understand, and joy seems to be a particularly meaningful expression of our life force. Some may complain that the word force is still too French, because it was borrowed from Old French, but it was actually quite a long time ago: c. 1300, 'physical strength,' from Old French force 'force, strength; courage, fortitude; violence, power, compulsion' (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *fortia (source also of Old Spanish forzo, Spanish fuerza, Italian forza), noun use of neuter plural of Latin fortis 'strong, mighty; firm, steadfast; brave, bold' (see fort). etymonline.com emphasis added If we concede to the objections against force, we can still be satisfied with plain old life, which is about as English as any English word can get: Old English life (dative lif) 'existence, lifetime, way of life, condition of being a living thing, opposite of death,' from Proto-Germanic *libam (cognates: Old Norse lif 'life, body,' Dutch lijf 'body,' Old High German lib 'life,' German Leib 'body'), properly 'continuance, perseverance,' from PIE *leip- 'to remain, persevere, continue; stick, adhere' (see leave (v.)). Much of the modern range of meanings was present in Old English. Meaning 'property which distinguishes living from non-living matter' is from 1560s. Sense of 'vitality, energy' is from 1580s. Extended 1703 to 'term of duration (of inanimate objects).' etymonline.com emphasis added Language is my life. Meaning: Language is my conscious rationale to work another day, and the deepest joy of my heart.

Example Input: Possible Duplicate: Definite article with plural nouns I recently reviewed (as I believe, rather thoroughly) the rules of using articles in English and I do not recall any rule on absence of definitive article THE with plural nouns. Can you give me a reference on such a rule?.
Example Output: Plural nouns with the definite article are, well, definite. Consider Cats don't like me. versus The cats don't like me. The former implies every cat on Earth doesn't like me; the latter, that some (contextually obvious) specific group of cats don't like me. ADDED In my opinion, yes, unmemorize that reference in your other question and memorize the following: use the definite article with a plural only to denote a known or stated subset of the class ('The elephants [in this zoo] are dangerous'); omit the article for the whole class ('Elephants [all of them] are dangerous'). Use an indefinite article with a singular to denote the whole class when you want to emphasize the singular nature ('A glass of wine is healthy, but two can lead to dissolution.') Use the definite article with a singular when referring to a specific instance or when you need, for some reason, to sound like Sir David Attenborough in a BBC nature documentary ('The elephant is a regal creature, reigning over his home, the savanna ...'). Of course, an indefinite article with a plural ('An elephants are dangerous') and omitting articles with the singular of a countable noun ('Elephant is dangerous') are both just wrong, wrong, wrong. Edit Two years later and I realize another rule: 'the' is used to mark adjectives that have been promoted to nouns. When Paul Revere said, 'The British are coming', he was referring to the British 10th Regiment of Foot, not to every subject of King George, so the 'the' was de rigeur under the above rule. However, when Quentin Crisp wrote, 'The British do not expect happiness,' he did mean every single Briton. The 'the' is only necessary to make it clear that the word 'British' is being used as a noun. With an ordinary noun, it would be different. 'Plumbers [all plumbers] do not expect happiness' but 'The plumbers [in London] do not expect happiness.' Compare Jacques Brel's lyric, 'The naked and the dead should hold each others' hands' with Dean Wormer's line, 'Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.' 'Naked' and 'dead' are nouns (or adjectives being used as nouns); 'fat', 'drunk', and 'stupid' are adjectives, which is why he uses 'is' instead of 'are': the subject of the verb is 'no way'.

Example Input: Is the following correct, or is there more to it? 'I forgot his name' I knew his name, but I forgot it. 'I forget his name' I keep forgetting his name. Where using 'forget' basically means that you tried to remember this information before as well, but you couldn't then either.
Example Output:
I forgot his name means that at some time past, I no longer remembered his name, but leaves open whether I can currently remember it. I forget his name can be construed in a couple of different ways: I forgot his name and I still can't remember it (but I hope you know who I'm talking about even so). I keep on forgetting his name. Both are valid; the context might disambiguate between the two.