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.

Q: Example: [f] moving said second cart to said proximate end of said scanning device so that said trays in said second cart be passed through said scanning device at said proximate end. Is the language used in patents archaic or simply intentionally obtuse?.

A: Patent lawyer here. I wouldn't call the language you cited either 'archaic' or 'intentionally obtuse.' 'Pedantic' or 'hyperliteral' may be better adjectives. The language you cited came from Claim 1 of US Pat. No. 6888460 Language in the claims section of the patent are considered the 'metes and bounds' of the intellectual property right. That is, the claim language describes the precise extent of the patent owner's monopoly. It is necessary for the language to be as accurate as possible in order to alert everyone to the scope of the patentee's property right. Because human language is so imprecise, it is very difficult to write text that comes even close to the level of clarity one would want in such a description. Some of the terms used are also jargon. Because patents are interpreted by courts, there is an entire history of court decisions determining the meaning of specific words. For example, the word 'comprising' means 'including the listed things but also potentially including other things as well' whereas 'consisting of' means 'including only the listed things.' In the language you cited, the word 'said' in the phrase 'said proximate end' makes it unambiguous that the reference is to the same 'proximate end' as previously recited ('wherein said scanning device comprises a proximate end and a distal end'). One might also use the word 'the' rather than 'said,' in this circumstance, but that's a matter of style.
****
Q: Background We have a motivational poster in our office that says: None of us is as smart as all of us. I think that it's grammatically incorrect, and here is my reasoning: All of the tigers have spots. All of us are here. None of us are dead yet. The three examples all sound correct when using the plural 'are', rather than 'is'. Question Unfortunately, some of my coworkers disagree with me. They believe that the quote is correct when it uses the word 'is'. So my question is this: Is the motivational quote grammatically correct or should it say 'all'?.

A: Semantically, none is neither singular nor plural. It's less than one and much less than many. So its subject agreement is entirely arbitrary. Plus, negatives are noted for their funny grammar. Positive quantifiers are either singular in verb agreement, like each and every, or plural, like all. None can be either, depending on context. Every boy is playing today. Every one of the boys is playing today. Each boy is playing today. Each of the boys is playing today. All of the boys are playing today. None of them are playing today. None of them is armed. If it quantifies a plural noun phrase, as in none of us, then it's equivalent to the negation of a universal quantifier in many cases. For instance, None of us are going to the party. is equivalent to All of us are not going to the party. which is ambiguous; that's one reason not to say it this way. instead of All of us are staying away from the party. which is unequivocally plural. As for the motivational slogan None of us is as smart as all of us (note, no full stop) It's intended to make you think, and it seems to have succeeded. If you like, you can take it as short for None of us is as smart as all of us together are. which is meant to contrast individual intelligence with groupthink, and therefore is unequivocally singular. tl;dr It'd be grammatical with are, but it'd also be a less efficient slogan.
****
Q: The word year when pronounced starts with a phonetic sound of e which is a vowel sound making it eligible for being preceded by an. Yet, we tend to write a year. Why?.

A:
I reject your premise that the word year starts with a phonetic sound of e. Here's how it is pronounced according to the various dictionaries: Wiktionary: (RP) IPA: /ji/, /j/, SAMPA: /ji@/, /j3:/; (US) enPR: yir, IPA: /ji/, SAMPA: /jir/ Merriam-Webster: \yirAmerican Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: /yir/ Collins English Dictionary: /j/ Words that start with the /j/ sound are preceded by an a, not by an an. Compare: a user, a utility, a yak.
****