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.

Example Input: Possible Duplicate: 'Nikki's and Alice's X' vs. 'Nikki and Alice's X' Consider describing the wedding of X and Y. If I want to avoid the overly-formal and poor-flowing 'wedding of', it is more correct to say 'X and Y's wedding' or 'X's and Y's wedding'? I acknowledge a very similar question has already been asked: What possessive forms are used for mutual 1st person ownership? But unfortunately the example given is able to be easily phrased a different way and so respondents have been able to get away with avoiding the direct question. Let's face it, we come across the need to get across the concept of mutual possession all the time and we don't always want to have to resort to the more tortured 'Z of X and Y' as with the French language. NB: In some cases, people get around this problem by dropping the apostrophes altogether and 'adjectivising' the owners, especially if the owners are actually plural entities themselves. Eg. The 'Mazda and Mitsubishi combined outputs' instead of the 'Mazda's and Mitsubishi's combined outputs'. Let's not let this muddy the waters though.
Example Output: This site states it very well: A less-often faced decision involves the use of apostrophes where multiple owners are named. Where two or more people own one item together, place an apostrophe before an 's' only after the second-named person. For example: Incorrect: Bill's and Mary's car was a lemon, leading them to seek rescission of their contract under the state's lemon law. Correct: Bill and Mary's car was a lemon, leading them to seek rescission of their contract under the state's lemon law. However, when two or more people own two or more items separately, each individual's name should take the possessive form. For example: Incorrect: Joanne and Todd's cars were bought from the same dealer; both proved useless, even though Joanne's car was an import and Todd's was a domestic model. Correct: Joanne's and Todd's cars were bought from the same dealer; both proved useless, even though Joanne's car was an import and Todd's was a domestic model. ('The Legal Writing Teaching Assistant: The Law Student's Guide to Good Writing', by Marc A. Grinker) So, saying 'X's and Y's weddings' (note that it's weddings not wedding) has a different meaning from 'X and Y's wedding'. The first one is denoting two separate weddings, and the two subjects named are not getting married to one another, but the second one is the one you are probably trying to say.

Example Input: I am looking for a word that incorporates all, or most, of the following (when referring to a sentence or a piece of technical literature): Highly academic Not useful (despite being technically correct) Overly verbose/eloquent Superfluous (to be honest, this seems to incorporate the rest, but I want to see if there is a better word here) Sample sentence (I hear it's required): There are many ____ white-paper definitions which only serve to dazzle the reader with the author's purported intelligence.
Example Output: The two most common, apart from Lux's pretentious, are going to be pedantic in the manner of a pedant, hence a. excessively concerned with minutiae. b. needlessly displaying academic learning. and pompous (originally) characterized by pomp and splendor. (now the primary sense) affectedly solemn and self-important. You'd use the first if the important aspect was how unimportant the information being shared was, the later if you wanted to emphasize the (undeserved) self-importance with which it was being shared. Since scholars have been writing for ages and this kind of behavior was, if anything, more common during the era when all scholars were monks, there are absolute scads of synonyms for variants and subvarieties. Some, like precious, could be considered gendered slurs; others, like bookish or nerdy, may not be taken as negative at all in our present culture. Two of my favorites are mumpsimus and sumpsimus.

Example Input: How can you explain that this double negation is not a double negation? Is there a rule in English about this kind of sentence? PS / Do I have to mention Pink Floyd Copyright ? :-) Edit : Since there are a lot of Pink Floyd related explanation, I'll bring a Freddy Mercury one : 'I don't have time for no monkey business', which I also understand as 'I don't have time for monkey business'. Am I right ?.
Example Output:
Doubled negatives are often used casually in certain dialects to indicate negative concord, an intensification of negation rather than an inversion of it. This typically happens when both words involved are simple negatives, and is most common with no standing in for a, an, or any alongside don't or ain't. So you can safely assume that He isn't not going to the concert. is double negation proper, because it has emphasis, as is She wasn't unimpressed. because this is litotes, whereas I ain't no hillbilly. is negative concord, because it's obviously casual, and uses ain't no in place of am no or am not a. (It's also a patent lie, but that's beside the point.)