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.

Input: Consider Input: There is a concept in computer science which deals with how to demonstrate negative binary numbers. Two methods for achieving this goal are ones' complement and two's complement. Since I got acquainted with these methods, this question never stops coming to my mind that why the apostrophe is placed differently in ones' vs two's? I also saw many articles using one's instead. Even Google suggests that I might be mistaken! So I want to resolve this issue once and for all. Is it a stylistic preference? What causes this difference? And please provide more examples of similar usage.

Output: Donald Knuth, that doyen of computer science, says in Art of Computer Programming, Vol 2.: Detail-oriented readers and copy-editors should notice the position of the apostrophe in terms like 'two's complement' and 'ones' complement': a two's complement number is complemented with respect to a single power of 2, whereas a ones' complement number is complemented with respect to a long sequence of 1s. Indeed, there is also a twos' complement notation, which has radix 3 and complementation with respect to (2...22) (base 3).


Input: Consider Input: I would like to use a noun made of multiple words (like particle board, Mount Everest, or windscreen wiper) in a compound adjective with a hyphen. But I don't know how to hyphenate such a composition. I'm not sure how common this situation is, so here's an example: Machine learning is a single noun made of two words, and I want to use it in a compound adjective with a hyphen. Are either of the following examples correct? I would like to pursue a machine learning-related certification. I would like to pursue a machine-learning-related certification. If not, then what is the correct way to hyphenate compound adjectives like this?.

Output: Bryan Garner, Garner's Modern American Usage (2003) has a useful discussion of this problem in his lengthy coverage of phrasal adjectives: E. The Compound Conundrum. When the first or last element in a phrasal adjective is part of a compound noun, it too needs to be hyphenated: post-cold-war norms, not post-cold war norms. Otherwise, as in that example, cold appears more closely related to post than to war. In your example, machine learning is the compound noun and related is the additional element in the adjective phrase, so Garner would endorse punctuating it as machine-learning-related. The Chicago Manual of Style, fifteenth edition (2003) takes essentially the same position as Garner: 5.92 Phrasal adjectives. A phrasal adjective (also called a compound modifier) is a phrase that functions as a unit to modify a noun. A phrasal adjective follows these basic rules: ... (2) If a compound noun is an element of a phrasal adjective, the entire compound noun must be hyphenated to clarify the relationship among the words {video-game-magazine dispute} {college-football-halftime controversy}. Words Into Type, third edition (1974) emphasizes the practical goal to be achieved by hyphenating (or not hyphenating): Phrases used as attributive adjectives usually require hyphenation to make clear their relation to the noun they modify. [Examples:] the how-to-study area; a life-and-death struggle If such a phrase modifier is hyphenated at all, it should be hyphenated throughout; but no hyphen should be used between the modifier and the noun. Wrong: low milk-and-cream yielding dam Right: low milk-and-cream-yielding dam Wrong: pay-as-you-go-plan Right: pay-as-you-go plan If there is scarcely any possibility of misreading, hyphens need not be used. [Examples:] a story and a half house; a thirty percent increase; yellow pine timber belt All of these (U.S.) style guides agree that when ambiguity as to what is modifying what might ensue from an unpunctuated adjective phrase, it is better to hyphenate the elements of the phrase than to leave the words open. But the goal is greater clarityand if the hyphens don't clarify anything, they have no business being there. Thus far, my answer has focused on the 'machine-learning-related certification' example in your question. Compound modifiers that incorporate proper nouns of two words or more (such as 'Mount Everestbased climbing expedition') follow a different rule in these style guides: leaving the proper name open, and connecting the compound noun to the adjective with an en-dash instead of a hyphen. I won't go back into the reference works to quote the specific guidelines from each book, but they recommend the approach I have just outlined in this paragraph.


Input: Consider Input: A few years ago I was told not to use that word because, in addition to its negative meaning, it comes from Latin denigratus, past participle of denigrare, which means to blacken. Therefore, 'to denigrate someone' would be 'to blacken that person'. Considering its current definition (see below) and the wish to be politically correct, I wonder whether the word has come to acquire any racist overtone. The reason why I'm asking is because I was reading 'Language Myths' a book by Laurie Bauer recently, and came across this passage which contained that word '...certain educational institutions denigrate the way certain ethnic minorities and lower-working-class children talk.' Then I remembered I was once told not to use 'denigrate' as it might be misinterpreted by some people. denigrate - from Merriam-Webster 1. to say very critical and often unfair things about (someone) 2. to attack the reputation of, to deny the importance or validity of, belittle EDIT (on Dec 17th, 2017) - This article, Dark Words Of Disapproval which Mari-Lou A mentions in one of the comments, shows very clearly the writer's feelings about this word, with very good arguments to bear him out. Then again, there are those who think otherwise. For one, Melvin B. Tolson, the character played by Denzel Washington in the 2007 feature film 'The Great Debaters', says the word has racist undertones. - Edit (on May 6th, 2020).


Output: I don't see why this question has received such negative responses. I think it's a good question. 'Blacken' indeed has a trans-historical meaning associated with vilification or corruption, but this has nothing to do with the inherent qualities of black people, animals, or the vast majority of black things. Would you consider the term 'blacklist' racist? If not, then you shouldn't see 'denigrate' as racist. Anyone who does is being a little silly. If you're worried, you could always replace it with 'disparage.' EDIT: Another example is use of the term 'sinister' to mean 'wicked.' This word comes from Latin 'sinister,' meaning 'left' or 'on the left side.' Over time, the mythologized connection of the left hand to the false or unfavorable came to give 'sinister' an association with the unsavory. This does not mean that we cannot use 'sinister' to mean 'wicked,' or that doing so would impugn left-handed people.