instruction:
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.
question:
I believe there is a term for a person who uses 'expert sounding' terminology and exudes confidence, even when their actual abilities are significantly short of their 'presentation'. Using 'wine' a subject.... if a person described a taste as: Magnificent bouquet, the esters resonate with hints of mulberry and asparagus. This must be an oak-matured red from Bordeaux. Perhaps.... 2003 vintage, that was a year when unusual rainfall produced an outstanding crop that had the same rich tannins. A person describing the wine like that has apparent confidence, apparent technical expertise, and so on. Yet, if he was a fraud, and knew nothing about wines, and the 'wine' was really vinegar.... what would you call that person? Additionally, this would not be a one-off thing. This would be a person who consistently 'bamboozles' people, and only when you dig below the posturing, or put them in the company of a 'real' expert, do you see the reality. A fraud, a cheat, an imposter. Those would be true, but I'm sure there's a word which also covers the confidence, charisma, and presentation style too. I just can't think of it.
answer:
My first thought for this would be charlatan:- A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud. [American Heritage Dictionary via The Free Dictionary] Another possibility would be mountebank:- a boastful unscrupulous pretender [Merriam-Webster]


question:
... Fiction writers (eye roll) To be burned at the stake If we can't come up with a verb, perhaps a corresponding noun or adjective would suffice. 15th century historical fiction, so modern terms such as marshmallowed wouldn't really help. Here is my sample: You, the accused, have been found guilty of practicing Judaism as a Christian. This heresy against our Lord Savior carries the penalty of ____(noun). Or [C]onvicted of heresy, you are to be ____(verb).
answer:
There is immolate: to kill or destroy (someone or something) by fire You also have the noun immolation and the adjective immolated. Now the thing is it doesn't have to be at a stake. It could be, say, in a cage. The word has been around since the 15th century.


question:
The question is quite straightforward: Which of the following is preferable? 'I keep myself up-to-date on the latest technology.' 'I keep myself up to date on the latest technology.'.
answer:

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, as quoted by the site below, you hyphenate if the compound adjective is before the noun and don't hyphenate if it is after the noun. With compound adjectives formed from the adverb well and a participle (e.g., well-known), or from a phrase (e.g., up-to-date), you should use a hyphen (or hyphens) when the compound comes before the noun: well-known brands of coffee; an up-to-date account, but not when the compound comes after the noun: His music was also well known in England. Their figures are up to date. From Oxford Dictionaries via Adverbs and Hyphens by Maeve Maddox for Daily Writing Tips. In this case the noun is myself and before the adjective, so no hyphen. In other styles, this may not necessarily hold true. For instance, in APA style, hyphens are discouraged unless they add clarity.