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:
Does the letter 'C' make any sound that cannot be made by other letters? 'Cat' could be spelled 'Kat,' 'Cinder' could be spelled 'Sinder,' and 'Watch' could be spelled 'Watsh.' Edit: An excerpt from a comment by Kosmonaut: There is no difference between ['ch' and 'tch']; both are /t/. Thus, 'witch' and 'which' are pronounced exactly the same: [wt]. (Actually some Southern American dialects pronounce 'which' as [t], but that is only a difference in the 'w' sound, not the /t/.).

Ex Output:
This is not a bad remark. All Germanic cognates of cat are indeed spelled with a 'k' (from P.Gmc. *kattuz, O.Fris. katte, O.N. kottr, Du. kat, O.H.G. kazza, Ger. Katze). The English word is spelled with a 'c' under the influence of Late Latin (cattus). See step 3 below. All Germanic cognates of cinder are indeed spelled with an 's': P.Gmc. *sindran (cf. O.S. sinder, O.N. sindr, M.L.G., M.Du. sinder, O.H.G. sintar, Ger. Sinter. Initial s- changed to c- under influence of Fr. cendre 'ashes. See step 4 below. The letter 'C' has already disappeared from a lot of words. Here are a few examples of the evolution of the spelling of some Old English words. queen used to be spelled cwen (and mean 'young woman'). quick used to be spelled cwic (and mean alive). drink used to be spelled drinc. bishop used to be spelled biscop (closer to 'Episcopal'). ship used to be spelled scip. Of course there is no single cause to all these changes. And even summarising them in a small answer is a huge challenge. But there is an interesting section in the wikipedia article about the 'C' letter. Yet I'd like to add a few background considerations. After the Anglo Saxon conquest of Britain in the 5th century, texts (very few have actually come down to us) were all written in the Runic Alphabet, because that was the alphabet in use in Germany (it had actually been borrowed from the Etruscan who add taken it from the Greeks who... who... Proto-Canaanite/Egyptians). In other words the Latin alphabet introduced by the Roman occupation fell into complete oblivion. When Pope Gregory sent out Augustine to convert the famously 'non angli, sed angeli' heathens, the dominant writing system shifted back to the Latin alphabet. Within a few decades England quickly raised to the most culturally prominent country in Europe (its lavishly illuminated Bibles and other religious manuscripts can still be found in many European museums and libraries). But the language used for these masterpieces was still Latin. There are very few words of English in these texts. Then the Vikings raided the monasteries to plunder all their riches and in the process they killed a large proportion of scholars. As a result, when King lfred endeavoured to rekindle the light of English culture, he started writing texts in 'Old nglisc' instead of Latin. For this purpose he naturally used the Latin alphabet with however the addition of a few runic characters (among which the '' and the '' for the sound 'th'). The 'c' was used for the sound /k/, 'cw' for /kw/ (queen), 'ce' and 'ci' for [t] (child) and 'sc' for [] (ship). These conventions were inspired from Vulgar Latin. In Middle English (in the wake of the Norman invasion), under the influence of the French spelling system, English underwent a spelling reform which affected many words containing the letter 'c'.


Ex Input:
I've read this and this. I know that the underlying question has been answered, my problem is of a different nature: I'm currently writing my master's thesis in CS and my professor thinks that the apostrophe possessive is only applicable to people. He claims to have spoken to a linguist from Cambridge who confirmed his opinion. Neither my professor nor I am a native speaker and the thesis is being written in Germany. Now, I know that he won't care if I just send him a couple of links to the answers here. So my question is: How do I convince my professor? Are there any 'more scientific™' sources that I can point to? Examples of phrases: If each plant's humidity is displayed publicly [...] [...] shows an overview of the node's structure. Due to an issue in the network stack's IPv6 subsystem [...].

Ex Output:
As few people are addressing the ''more scientific™' sources' bit of the question, it should be pointed out that there are a number of English style guides out there, practically all of which should cover the topic of forming possessives with apostrophe-s (as it's a frequent issue even with native speakers). You should be able to find copies of at least one of the major ones in any decent University library. (At least at any decent University with English classes.) The Elements of Style by Strunk and White is the 'gold standard' for many Americans, although there are many who disagree with many of the details. The Chicago Manual of Style is a well-used standard for (American) University usage. - The online version is unapologetic and direct on this topic: 'The possessive of most singular nouns is formed by adding an apostrophe and an s', although it does go into more details. Fowler's modern English usage by Henry Fowler is also a well-regarded standard, particularly for British users. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage by Pam Peters has the benefit of the 'authority' of Cambridge. Oxford, of course, has their own: The New Oxford Style Manual, though the title has varied with edition. If physical copies aren't something you're interested in, a number of organizations (particularly journalism houses) have their house style guides online. For example, the Economist makes no mention of the conjectured rule in its advice. The Guardian gives additional examples, and also completely omits the purported rule. Others can likely be found by searching, and other major organizations (like the Associate Press and the New York Times) have theirs as printed books. Many dictionaries also have usage notes in them. (In particular, I'll point out the comment from @ps2goat mentioning Oxford Dictionaries's online page.) Ultimately, though, it's exceedingly difficult to prove a negative. Even confronted with evidence that a large number of style guides and usage manuals for English have nothing approaching the purported rule, your professor might not be convinced that he is mistaken. If that is the case, your best choice is probably to reword things to avoid the issue.


Ex Input:
Please point out where 'abaft the beam' is on this picture. I cannot find it. abaft adv. Toward the stern. prep. Toward the stern from.

Ex Output:

Here is a another picture which points out all locations on a boat and which indicates where 'abaft the beam' refers to, whether port or starboard beam. I have highlighted the relevant terms for you, in red. 'Abaft' is formed (from 'baft') within English by derivation, says the OED 'Baft' : 1. Of place: Behind, in the rear; in later usage only Nautical: Astern, aft, abaft. arch.