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:
There are many English words with silent letters, words like gnome or island that are spelt with consonants that aren't pronounced, but are there any words that work the other way round, with a pronunciation that includes extra sounds or syllables that are not in the spelling? I can't think of any real examples, hence this question, but a made-up example would be if gnome were spelt nome but pronounced with a g at the start. Or if people started pronouncing offer as 'ofter' as a sort of weird parallel to after. Note: I don't mean words like rough, where the f sound is spelt gh, because in those cases the spelling does still include letters (however seemingly illogical) for each of the sounds.

Ex Output:
Probably 'yes', but it depends on what you mean. There isn't actually a clear way to identify which sounds in a word correspond to which letters: for example, rough, which you say has letters for 'each of the sounds', could be analyzed as r- + -ou- + -gh or as r- + -o- + ugh. When similar issues arise with other words, it makes it pretty subjective to decide whether the word has consonant sounds that 'aren't part of the spelling' or that just have an complex relationship to the spelling. Some words that could be considered to meet your criteria: Consonants Any word with an epenthetic voiceless plosive between a nasal and a following consonant. For many speakers, a productive process causes a sound like /t/, /p/ or /k/ to be inserted after the sounds /n/, /m/ or // respectively in various environments. In most words, the epenthetic plosive is not written, so you could say that there is a /p/ in the pronunciation but not the spelling of warmth, dreamt, hamster, seamstress, a /t/ in the pronunciation but not the spelling of sense, glance, a /k/ in the pronunciation but not the spelling of strength, angst. In eighth and in one pronunciation of threshold, a digraph that usually represents a single sound corresponds instead to two sounds: /t/ and /h/ respectively. You could say that the /t/ in eighth or the /h/ in that pronunciation of threshold isn't part of the spelling. Something similar applies for speakers who use the pronunciation /hat/ instead of /hat/: whether it's spelled height or heighth, it seems like one of the two sounds at the end is not explicitly represented in the spelling. In some accents of British English, the vowels found in words like saw and draw is regularly followed by epenthetic /r/ before another vowel. This means that the words sawing and drawing are pronounced with an /r/ that 'isn't part of the spelling'. Vowels or syllables Many words with syllabic resonants, or sequences of a schwa followed by a resonant, have no particular letter that marks the syllabicity. Words ending in -thm or -sm are the most obvious example. Other examples are more dialect dependent, but words like hour are disyllabic for some speakers.


Ex Input:
What's a word that means 'not knowing everything'? This would serve as a complementary antonym of omniscient, which means having infinite knowledge, or simply 'all-knowing'. Thesaurus.com shows these possible words: stupid (opposite of being clever, which = being omniscient) unknowing (opposite of being knowing, which = being omniscient) fallible (opposite of being infallible, which means 'not able to make mistakes', which = being omniscient, since I can know everything and still make mistakes) erring (which means 'capable of making mistakes', which = being omniscient, since I can know everything and still make mistakes) imperfect (opposite of being perfect, which is a superset of being omniscient... how could I be perfect if I'm both omniscient and fallible?) faulty (which means 'to have fault(s) / defect(s)', is the opposite of 'to have no fault(s) / defect(s)', which means being perfect, which = being omniscient) ignorant (which means 'having inadequate knowledge', is the opposite of 'having adequate knowledge', which = having infinite knowledge) uneducated (opposite of being educated, which = being omniscient) unaware (opposite of being aware, which = being omniscient) uninformed (opposite of being informed, which = being omniscient) Yet, none of them are true antonyms for omniscient. Is there an alternative?.

Ex Output:
According to reference.com, the Random House dictionary registers unomniscient as a legitimate word. There are a handful of hits on Google Books which include the following examples: Chaucer deepens Jean de Meun's joke about the God's ersatz divinity: immediately after the God has just issued some clearly unomniscient judgments ... If at every world, God knows at that world only the propositions whose truth-values are modally constant, then it would seem that God is necessarily unomniscient. There are actually two types of unomniscient focus, since the narrator may know the same as or even less than the characters. The impossibility of an unomniscient intelligence demonstrating the supposed contradiction, and thus transforming our universe into an untrustworthy universe, with which one can have no intercourse, is the attitude primarily assumed towards ... Also of interest is the term bounded rationality: Bounded rationality is the idea that in decision-making, rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the finite amount of time they have to make a decision.


Ex Input:
Possible Duplicate: Is a company always plural, or are small companies singular? When I'm referring to a group of multiple things, should it be considered singular or plural for the purposes of applying a verb to it? For example, which is correct in the examples below? A sentence is a group of words that is followed by a period. A sentence is a group of words that are followed by a period. The group of people constitutes a jury. The group of people constitute a jury. A group of crows is called a 'murder'. A group of crows are called a 'murder'. My instinct is that it depends on whether the verb is referncing the group itself or the members of the group directly, but is that right?.

Ex Output:

According to the OALD, group can actually serve as either a plural or singular noun. The category they give is 'countable + singular or plural verb'. So, an example of correct use is: A group of us is/are going to the theatre this evening. For any of your examples, both is and are can be used. I think the difference between them is as you say: use is when you are referring to the group, and use are when you are referring to the members of a given group. This page on when to use 'group' as plural from Washington State University backs this up, saying: When the group is being considered as a whole, it can be treated as a single entity: 'the group was ready to go on stage.' But when the individuality of its members is being emphasized, 'group' is plural: 'the group were in disagreement about where to go for dinner.' To analyze your given examples, here are some notes: A sentence is a group of words that is followed by a period. Use this form if you're talking about the group itself. That is, a sentence is a group of words followed by a period. A sentence is a group of words that are followed by a period. This implies that 'This. Is. A. Sentence' is a sentence. The group of people constitutes a jury. The group of people constitute a jury. This would be more correct, since you are describing the nature of the group. A group of crows is called a 'murder'. This would be correct, since you're again describing an entire group. A group of crows are called a 'murder'.