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:
Consider the following two sentences: Statement 1: The parameters were calculated a priori, and the other variables were calculated iteratively. Statement 2: The parameters were calculated a priori, and the other variables were calculated iteratively. This may seem trivial, but the only difference between the two sentences is the way in which the , has been formatted. In the first statement the , is in italics. In the second, the , is not in italics. Does it depend on the writer whether or not to italicize the punctuation marks adjoining the affected words? Or is there a definite rule governing this? The same question can be extended to other types of formatting, e.g. bold.
answer:
Here's one style manual's answer to that question: Italics do not include punctuation marks (end marks or parentheses, for instance) next to the words being italicized unless those punctuation marks are meant to be considered as part of what is being italicized: 'Have you read Stephen King's Pet Semetary?' (The question mark is not italicized here.) Also, do not italicize the apostrophe-s which creates the possessive of a title: 'What is the Courant's position on this issue?' This is really a style-manual problem, not an English usage or grammar problem. Each publication has its house style. Newspapers have their own style manuals, academic fields have theirs, and technical fields have theirs. There is no definite rule.


question:
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'?.
answer:
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.


question:
I'm trying to describe a situation in which a person prepares for an event, then realises the event won't happen, and so they undo their preparations, returning to a state of unpreparedness. Whenever I search for the opposite of 'prepare', I get words that describe a failure to prepare in the first place, or at best words that describe what happens to the preparations, not words that describe what happens to the person. Is there a word that captures what happens to the person as they return to a state of unpreparedness?.
answer:

There is the phrase 'stand down' about which Lexico says stand down PHRASAL VERB 2 Relax or cause to relax after a state of readiness. If something doesn't happen soon, I reckon they'll stand us down. An ambulance crew was dispatched immediately, however they were stood down shortly after. They have got to accept that the war is over and stand down their army once and for all.