niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Question: Persistence and perseverance seem to have very similar definitions. Googling shows persistence: Firm or obstinate continuance in a course of action in spite of difficulty or opposition. perseverance: Steadfastness in doing something despite difficulty or delay in achieving success. What is the difference between them? 
Answer: "Persistence" is used in the sense of "stubborn" (obstinate). There could be a slight negative connotation. For example: The telemarketers persistently called us. We don't say they "perseverantly" called us. "Persistent" is used when there continuing action, and the purpose is either bad, or neutral, and sometimes(rarely) good. "Perseverance", is used when the purpose is good. That is, you're doing something to help someone, or to achieve a desirable goal, such as climbing Mt. Everest. Depending on how you feel on something, you could use "perseverance"/"Persistence". For example, the telemarketer calling you, could annoy you, and you could call him "obstinately persistent". But to the marketer, you might be to him, a tough customer, and he might seem to himself "bravely perseverant in trying to persuade this tough customer." As you can see, it gives a different "feel" about the thing described.
Output: yes
Question: When someone says I stand corrected. What does that mean? 
Answer: It's the softest way to say you were wrong before.
Output: no
Question: Possible Duplicate: Definite article with plural nouns I recently reviewed (as I believe, rather thoroughly) the rules of using articles in English and I do not recall any rule on absence of definitive article THE with plural nouns. Can you give me a reference on such a rule? 
Answer: Plural nouns with the definite article are, well, definite. Consider Cats don't like me. versus The cats don't like me. The former implies every cat on Earth doesn't like me; the latter, that some (contextually obvious) specific group of cats don't like me. ADDED In my opinion, yes, unmemorize that reference in your other question and memorize the following: use the definite article with a plural only to denote a known or stated subset of the class ("The elephants [in this zoo] are dangerous"); omit the article for the whole class ("Elephants [all of them] are dangerous"). Use an indefinite article with a singular to denote the whole class when you want to emphasize the singular nature ("A glass of wine is healthy, but two can lead to dissolution.") Use the definite article with a singular when referring to a specific instance or when you need, for some reason, to sound like Sir David Attenborough in a BBC nature documentary ("The elephant is a regal creature, reigning over his home, the savanna ..."). Of course, an indefinite article with a plural ("An elephants are dangerous") and omitting articles with the singular of a countable noun ("Elephant is dangerous") are both just wrong, wrong, wrong. Edit Two years later and I realize another rule: "the" is used to mark adjectives that have been promoted to nouns. When Paul Revere said, "The British are coming", he was referring to the British 10th Regiment of Foot, not to every subject of King George, so the "the" was de rigeur under the above rule. However, when Quentin Crisp wrote, "The British do not expect happiness," he did mean every single Briton. The "the" is only necessary to make it clear that the word "British" is being used as a noun. With an ordinary noun, it would be different. "Plumbers [all plumbers] do not expect happiness" but "The plumbers [in London] do not expect happiness." Compare Jacques Brel's lyric, "The naked and the dead should hold each others' hands" with Dean Wormer's line, "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life." "Naked" and "dead" are nouns (or adjectives being used as nouns); "fat", "drunk", and "stupid" are adjectives, which is why he uses "is" instead of "are": the subject of the verb is "no way".
Output: yes
Question: Is it correct to say "Wish you a happy weekend" or should I say "Wishing you a happy weekend"? 
Answer: In the UK we say 'Have a nice weekend.'.
Output: no
Question: Is there a word that describes or denotes a type of conversation in which two speakers speak two different languages. In our country, Pakistan, there are approximately 75 languages, from which Urdu, Punjabi and Sindhi are common, excluding English. So today I found two women speaking two different languages. For example: Speaker 1 has Urdu as their mother tongue. Speaker 2 has Sindhi as their mother tongue. Speaker 1 and 2 spoke their own mother tongue, which are different (Urdu and Sindhi) but both can understand each other's language. I thought that this is known as "intermingling conversation," or a "code switching." In my opinion, we can't use such words because code-switching refers "shifting completely to the other language for a word, a phrase or sentence, and then revert back to the base language." Example sentences: They were in a bus and had [adjective] conversation. They were in a bus and had [noun or noun-phrase for such conversation]. I agree that the question (which is suspected as a duplicate one to this question) is really a duplicate, but its single answer still doesn't satisfy all. In that question, the phrase "bilingual dialogue" was suggested, which I (and others may) think that this refers to the code switching as well, which I don't want here. Some words confuse the readers which sense do they mean. I would also love to quote the comment of @Lambie regarding the term "bilingual" over here: "Bilingual refers to one person. Not two people each of whom has a passive knowledge of the other's language but do not speak it well enough to use it actively." 
Answer: In his book Talk in Two Languages, Joseph Gafaranga examines, among other things, the patterns of conversation within bilingual families. He calls the pattern described in the OP's question the parallel mode. Here is a screenshot from Google Books of the introduction to his discussion of the parallel mode pattern. So by Gafaranga's terminology the Urdu and Sindhi speakers were conducting a conversation in parallel (language) mode.
Output: yes
Question: I am looking for a term to replace formulations like "the activities of the morning", "the rituals pertinent to the morning", "the morning report" (that one is from the Lion King, I couldn't resist). I tried perusing the internet search engines of my knowledge, including some searches on merriam webster's website, but I can't get a hold of what I am looking for. In fact, I will eat a better breakfast and pray every morning, now. 
Answer: I think I would use matinal, which the OED holds to have the same meaning as matutinal. However the latter they designate as now chiefly literary. The examples they provide, for matinal across three main senses, are as follows: = matutinal adj. 1. 1803 M. Charlton Wife & Mistress (ed. 2) II. i. 11 To attend the matinal dejeune's of old Gruffy in town. 1860 Ld. Lytton Lucile ii. v. 9. 30 The matinal chirp of a bird. 1862 Mrs. H. Wood Channings II. 74 Believing it could be nobody less than the bishop come to alarm them with a matinal visit. 1908 J. Davidson Testament 37 The earth with its seas and its skies, Its flowers and its matinal dew. 1991 E. S. Connell Alchymist's Jrnl. (1992) 100 Wounds contracted past noon are less auspicious than matinal injuries. a. = matutinal adj. 2. 1819 H. Busk Vestriad v. 276 The grey-ey'd Hours climb up the starry way To meet fair maidens matinal as they. 1842 F. Trollope Visit to Italy I. xiv. 219 As if my very matinal son and myself had constituted the whole party. 1997 Church Times 11 Apr. 20/3 I am, metabolically speaking, one of Bishop Heber's sons of the morning: a matinal man who is fast asleep before the epilogue. b. Entomology. Of, relating to, or designating insects that are only active in the early morning. 1970 Jrnl. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 43 251 (title) Some competitive relationships among matinal and late afternoon foraging activities of caupolicanine bees. 1985 Biotropica 17 217 Visitors that remove nectar, but are ineffective pollinators include seven Euglossa spp. and three species of matinal butterflies (Hesperiidae). 1997 Jrnl. Thermal Biol. 22 453 Activity patterns are..either matinal, crepuscular, or bimodal; essentially desert bees avoid heat and adapt to cold desert dawns and dusks.
Output: no
Question: There is a question titled "Does calling a road 'wavy' convey its shape clearly?" which looks like this is a duplicate, but in fact, it's not. In that question, there's talk of a road that slightly bends right and left, not up and down. So how do you describe a road that is up down and road? I am confused which word to use. There is one word to describe it. Can I say it is a zig-zag road? 
Answer: "Undulate" is often used for roads that go up and down, while 'zig-zag' is used for roads that repeatedly bend to the left and right. The road undulates for three miles before descending into a valley. I enjoy an undulating road while driving, but not while cycling.
Output: yes
Question: Let's imagine a hypothetical business: Mistake Corp. Mistake Corp makes a lot of mistakes, and as it turns out, the reason they make these mistakes is typically the same. 90% of the time Mistake Corp makes a mistake, it's because of misinformation. I suppose misinformation is the opposite of a linchpin for Mistake Corp. I'd like to be able to use the word like so: "Misinformation is the [anti-linchpin] of Mistake Corp" What non-ambiguous word, other than "anti-linchpin", can I use to describe something that is a frequent cause for mistakes to those who aren't as English-savvy? 
Answer: Cognitive dissonance (Psychology) An uncomfortable mental state resulting from conflicting cognitions; usually resolved by changing some of the cognitions.
Output: no
Question: I'm a programmer and often create login/register forms. I'd really like a single word to use to describe a form that lets the user login/register. Sort of like "authentication", but that's really more specific to the login part. The next best I can come up with is "onboarding", but that really applies more to the register part. Does such a word exist? Edit: I'm really looking for this from a coding perspective, not to display on the page (i.e. it doesn't need to be user-friendly). I just want it to be concise so that I can avoid variables like "login_register". 
Answer: This form is the single point of entry for new and existing users, so I suggest entry as an appropriate name for a single form for both login and registration. The name makes it clear it's the entry point. The only other name that springs to mind is account, but I think that would be better kept for something that allows you to change your email, password, settings etc.
Output: yes
Question: If I'm converting something from analogue to digital, I digitise it. What am I doing if I convert from digital to analogue? 
Answer: When I take a digital video or sound source and convert it to analog (for example by using a tape recorder to record an MP3) I am making an analog recording of the digital source. In earlier decades, recording a sound almost always meant making an analog recording by magnetic tape. For example, I might record a meeting with a tape recorder, or have a tape recording of a phone message on my answering machine. When digital recording started to become affordable and mainstream, the word digital was added to indicate that digital techniques were being used instead of the default analog (and of course for marketing reasons.) "Hey check out my new digital voice recorder, I can record a whole day of classes without having to change a tape!" Fast forward to today, and digital recording is standard, while analog is the unusual special case. Today, recording is assumed to be digital, unless you specify otherwise by saying it's an analog recording.
Output: no
Question: In technical literature as well as aircraft user interfaces where there is not enough space to write the whole word, the prefix "trans" is shortened to "x". Transmit -> Xmit Transfer -> Xfer I am interested to know what is the origin of this. I am curious because "Ex" and "Trans" do not have a similar sound. 
Answer: X is commonly used to refer to cross because of its shape of two lines crossing. Trans- means cross/across. Trans- and cross- are interchangeable in many cases. From Wikipedia (emphasis mine): In abbreviations, it can represent trans- (e.g. XMIT for 'transmit', XFER for 'transfer'), cross- (e.g. X-ing for 'crossing', XREF for 'cross-reference'), Christ- as shorthand for the labarum (e.g. Xmas for 'Christmas', Xian for 'Christian'), the crys- in 'crystal' (XTAL), or various words starting with ex- (e.g. XL for 'extra large', XOR for 'exclusive-or'). Example: a transatlantic flight is one that crosses the Atlantic, and something that is transdermal crosses through the skin. The trans- in transmit and transfer is analogous to transatlantic. Crossing a mit or a fer makes perfect sense. -Mit is from the Latin mittere which means to send. -Fer is from the Latin ferre which means to bear or carry. 'Transmit' often means to send across something or over a specific medium and 'transfer' can be to carry across from one to another. Therefore trans- is often replaced with X- in certain words.
Output: yes
Question: Possible Duplicate: "Did it close" vs "Has it closed"? As a English non-native speaker it is difficult for me to understand when I must use present perfect or past simple because in my official language there isn't the present perfect tense. I know that present perfect is related to something that happened in the past but its result is important now. But for instance: The message has been sent. The message was sent. Please help me point me out any examples/contexts where I should use 1. instead of 2. 
Answer: Think of the past tense as referring to an event that took place at a particular time in the past. In saying The message was sent, the speaker will normally have in mind something like yesterday or last week. The present perfect is called 'present' for a reason. The speaker is talking about the situation now, a situation in which a past event has some bearing on the present. For example, The message has been sent might be followed by a comment such as so it's too late to do anything about it now.
Output: no
Question: "Jealousy" contains most of the vowels but lacks 'i'. Is there a word in the English language that contains every vowel (and preferably 'y')? 
Answer: I totally rule at Clockwords by using sequoia and facetiously. Wikipedia used to have a list of words containing all the vowels, but the article has since been deleted. Some of the fun facts it mentioned included: The word Iouea, a genus of sea sponges, contains all five regular vowels and no other letters. [...] There are many words that feature all five regular vowels occurring only once in alphabetical order, the most common being abstemious and facetious. [...] Considering y as a vowel, the suffix -ly can be added to a number of these words; thus the shortest word containing six unique vowels in alphabetical order is aeriously, with nine letters (OED)[.].
Output: yes
Question: 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/.) 
Answer: You've answered youself. Ch creates - among other pronunciations of this digraph - the sound tsh' which cannot be created otherwise. Like cheese, China and lots of other words. Sometimes it's used with t before, like in watch, scotch thus putting more stress on the t part of the sound.
Output: no
Question: Upon answering the telephone, the person calling asks if Joan is available. If Joan is the person who answered the phone, should she say "This is her" or "This is she"? 
Answer: Traditional grammarians prefer the nominative ("she") for the complement of the verb "to be". Most usage in my experience prefers the accusative ("her") and regards the verb as having a direct object rather than a complement. I suspect the traditional grammarians, as they often did, have misapplied a rule of Latin grammar. In Latin, "esse" takes a complement in the nominative case, but Latin declines the verb strongly enough that it doesn't bother with a pronoun as the subject of a verb unless needed for emphasis. "It is she" in Latin would be "illa id est", which looks far more natural than the English. Note that it's "c'est lui" in French, so there isn't a general rule for a complement of "to be" being in the nominative. Explanation: A normal (transitive) verb, like say "have" has a direct object, which is in the accusative case. So, for example, "I have her" uses "her" as a direct object, and "her" is in the accusative case, where "she" is in the nominative case. In Latin, the verb "esse" ("to be") is special; it doesn't have a direct object in the accusative case, it has a complement in the nominative case. English grammarians in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries adopted a number of rules of Latin grammar into English; this was one of them. In Latin, "it is she" and "she is it" are both the same thing "id illa est" or "illa id est" can both be translated either way - the point being that the "is" ("est") just equates to things to each other - it's like in maths you can have x=y or y=x and they both mean the same thing. English, though, takes word-order very seriously, and a pronoun after a verb is very strongly marked as being in the objective case and you don't get the benefit that you get in Latin from the exception - there's still one before the verb and one after; you don't get to make clear that it's commutative. So you have a special-case for a verb, which you get no useful benefit from. It's hardly surprising that most English speakers have reverted to "it is her" rather than "it is she". A note on cases: Latin is conventionally described as having seven cases (though only five are actually different for most nouns and pronouns). It has two cases, accusative and dative for the objects of verbs. English's residual case system only has the one case for both, which merge into the objective case (in fact, a third Latin case, ablative, merges in too). That's why the two paragraphs above appear to use two different words for the same case.
Output: yes
Question: Possible Duplicate: How to use "tens of" and "hundreds of"? Take this example: Hundreds of pieces were used to create it. What if the amount were something like 20 or 30? What would the equivalent sentence be that would sound natural? 
Answer: The equivalent sentence would be Tens of pieces were used to create it.
Output: no
Question: I often read the expression "would of" used instead of "would have". Each time I read it I get annoyed so I googled it and found out -as I expected- that it is an incorrect way to say "would have". Now, there are a lot of brilliant slang words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It's so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it is pointless, why did they come up with this expression? Edit: I don't think my question is a duplicate as I didn't ask how can somebody use it (since I know it's incorrect and I know that I can use it with commas giving it a different meaning) but I asked why and how people came up with this expression. 
Answer: Correction: what annoys you is people writing "would of" when they are saying /wdv/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would've. The vowel of the preposition "of" is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /v/. Thus "would've" and "would of" are homophones. So no surprise that some people spell it that way, even though it makes no grammatical sense. Would've can be even further reduced to /wd/, which some people spell woulda as a kind of phonetic eye dialect to represent actual speech or set an informal tone. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda, musta. Spelling as it sounds can yield amusing results: Along the way the details of his past are sordid out and he realizes that what he once thought about his parents isn't the truth at all. Amazon.com Review. A speaker of British English, of course, would never write sorted in this manner, but with an American flapped t, it's a perfect fit.
Output: yes
Question: is it 'a usual' or 'an usual'? 'A usual' sounds more correct in my head ('Today was a usual day.') than 'an usual', but u is a vowel. Which one is correct and why? 
Answer: The technical definitions are: open vowel sounds or closed vowel sounds. All open vowel sounds such as, orange, envelope and image require the article "an" to bridge the two open sounds. Closed vowel sounds typically start with an unwritten "yu" consonant such as "a university" or "a united Europe, a Europe which is united" and therefore use the more common "a" article.
Output: no
Question: In Russian we have the term "". I would translate it as "asshands" which literally means that your hands grow out of your behind and you can't do anything right (or do anything at all). Example: Dad: "Hey son, can you hang up this picture on the wall?" Son: "No dad, my hands grow out of my behind, I'll probably end up hanging it upside down" (Or "I am a _____" - i.e. the term I'm looking for.) Is there anything similar in English? Is the term "screw up" the one? Or are there any other ones? I want slang specifically, preferably American. 
Answer: "All thumbs", according to Wiktionary "clumsy, awkward, not dextrous." "Klutz", according to Wiktionary "a clumsy or stupid person.".
Output: yes
Question: 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? 
Answer: For the word 'year' to be preceded by 'an' it must sound like it's beginning with a vowel. The reason why it is a tad tricky is because of the difference in the way people pronounce it. Some people pronounce the word 'year' as 'ear' with 'y' silent, thereby wanting 'an' to precede and feeling discomfort with 'a'. e.g. 'It's been an _ear since we talked'. Whereas others pronounce it with a 'ye' sound in the beginning. In this case one finds that using 'a' suddenly sounds more comfortable. e.g. 'It's been a 'ye'ar since we talked'.
Output: no
Question: Is singular correct, or is plural of "credential" correct for a single username & password pair? 
Answer: This isn't a question you can answer by thinking about the grammar - it's just a case of conventional usage. I've previously worked in the tech industry, and we would always say credentials, never credential. That would still be true even if the credentials were a single item like a certificate. [Edit to add: but Samuel has provided a counter-example to this in a comment on the OP.] In wider English, credential is valid - it's used for example in this Wikipedia article - but it's still more common to use the plural (see Oxford Dictionaries for confirmation). For example, I could say that I have presented my credentials to someone if I have shown them my passport, even though I've only shown them one physical item.
Output: yes
Question: I am looking for a word that describes a person described in the description of the title. An example of such a person would be a person who comfortably passes the (easier) qualifiers and gradually performs even better as opponents get tougher in the final stages of a tournament. The person does not necessarily relax when he knows he can easily win, but "naturally" performs better as the stakes get higher. 
Answer: If the difficulty of the situation is due to competition with other people, then the person could be called competitive. Eager to do better than others in an activity, esp. trying to win in a sports activity:.
Output: no
Question: This question, "Discrete Units of a Continuous Quantity", asks whether units of a continuous quantity should be spoken of as discrete or continuous. The top answer states The rule is simple, and you obviously know it: discrete quantities require the use of "fewer" and continuous quantities require the use of "less". Calorie, as a unit, requires the use of "fewer". Energy, as a continuum, requires the use of "less". "Fewer calories means less energy." I do not understand the logic here though. Calorie is a unit, yes, but it is a continuous unit (it is possible to have half a calorie, or 4.582394 calories). Since a calorie is such a small unit of energy compared to what it is usually used for (food energy and human metabolism), it is very seldom expressed in a fractional form and instead is rounded (usually to the nearest 10 or higher). Why then should "fewer" be used with calorie instead of "less"? Is there another relevant rule than just "continuous quantities use "less" and discrete quantities use "fewer"? 
Answer: Divisibility does not mean something is not countable or that it isn't a discrete unit, requiring use of 'fewer'. A calorie is not 'energy' it is a 'unit of energy', and therefore, countable and discrete, even though it's divisible. It's divisible into further discrete units - half a calorie, in this case, is still a discrete unit. Using another example, you would have 'fewer' jars of peanut butter, even though someone might have eaten half of the peanut butter in some of the jars. You could even cut the entire jar in half, none of that matters, you still have fewer jars. And you also have less peanut butter, in the same way that fewer calories means less energy. The calorie corresponds to the jar, not to the peanut butter (that would correspond to the energy the calorie measures). It doesn't matter that there is 'less' peanut butter in some jars than in others any more than it would matter if some of the jars were a gallon in size, and some were just single-use jars with two tablespoons of peanut butter inside. Put another way, your 'half a calorie' is still a unit, and thus, you'd still say 'fewer calories'.
Output: yes
Question: What word means to make something obsolete? For example, the automobile made the horse and buggy obsolete. How would the word obsolete be applied as a verb? obsoleted The automobile obsoleted the horse and buggy. bleech. made obsolete The automobile made obsolete the horse and buggy. Not bad, but there's room for improvement. EDIT: I'm looking for a verb that has an edge; that captures the upheaval and aggressiveness involved in displacing a product or industry. Killed is a bit strong. killed The automobile killed the horse and buggy. A bit overstated. ran out of business The automobile ran the horse and buggy out of business marginally better, but still not good. disrupted the automobile disrupted the horse and buggy Better applied to an industry, like so the automobile disrupted the transportation industry in the early 20th century; particularly the horse and buggy. Wordy. smashed The automobile smashed the horse and buggy. More along the lines of what I seek, but a bit improper. XXX The automobile XXX the horse and buggy. What verb fits best here? 
Answer: supplanted, succeeded, undermined, unseated, usurped, ejected, ousted.
Output: no
Question: This phrase is all over the internet. They will say that something is free as in 'free beer' and free as in 'free speech'. I have never really understood this. Are these the examples of two different types of 'free'? 
Answer: Wikipedia on Gratis versus Libre: Gratis versus libre is the distinction between two meanings of the English adjective "free"; namely, "for zero price" (gratis) and "with few or no restrictions" (libre). The ambiguity of "free" can cause issues where the distinction is important, as it often is in dealing with laws concerning the use of information, such as copyright and patents. And further: With the advent of the free software movement, license schemes were created to give developers more freedom in terms of code sharing, commonly called open source or free and open source software. As the English adjective free does not distinguish between "for zero price" and "liberty", the phrases "free as in free beer" (gratis, freeware) and "free as in free speech" (libre, free software) were adopted. [...] "Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer." Richard Stallman Emphasis added.
Output: yes
Question: I debated with my peers that we can use the word emails when referring to more than one and it would be grammatically right. But most of them said since we don't say we received mails today, similarly we won't say we received emails . Quick advice please. 
Answer: Dan Bron's comment (above) that e-mail/email at its inception was treated as a mass noun is correctand so is Kristina Lopez's comment (above) that e-mail/email is widely applied today not just to the medium of electronic mail but to individual messages sent and received in that medium. For many years the technology magazines where I worked enforced a strict house rule: e-mail (and later email) referred to "electronic mail" as a mode of communication, and individual messages had to be termed "e-mail [or email] messages." But three or four years ago, the overwhelming weight of popular usage prevailed, and we began to accept the use of email as a singular noun that could take an indefinite article, and emails as a plural nounboth referring to individual messages. It is probably not coincidental that other forms of electronic communication receive similar treatment in popular (and some publishing) usage: a text and texts for "a text message" and "text messages," respectively; and an IM and IMs for "an instant messaging message" and "instant messaging messages" (as I recall, people used to avoid "instant messaging message" by conflating the technology with the individual message to produce "instant message"). At publishing houses, the proper handling of "an e-mail [or email]" versus "an e-mail [or email] message" remains a house style issuethere is no universally agreed-upon preference. If you are beholden to no one's style guide, you are free to use the wording that you like better. But the overall tendency, I believe, is toward accepting an email and emails as collapsed forms of "an electronic mail message" and "electronic mail messages.".
Output: no
Question: Possible Duplicate: How do I say "Our meeting is preponed"? A friend of mine asked me this question, and it caught my curiosity. Is there an explicit opposite of the word postpone? As in, do something in advance? Clearly what I just said is functionally equivalent to the answer I am seeking, but I was wondering if there was a single word that is the antonym. More context: Bob was supposed to start work in July, but due to a work visa issue, he had to begin in advance. 
Answer: The most business-speaky option is expedite. Other alternatives include accelerate, hasten, and advance. Technically prepone is in fact the precise antonym, but I honestly wouldn't be caught dead using it.
Output: yes
Question: "The worst student" is the student who is bad at things. In this case, "worst" simply describes the noun. Following this logic, your "worst enemy" would be the person who is very bad at being your enemy, thus is actually your best friend. Your "worst enemy" is actually the enemy who is very good at being your enemy. Thus, in this context, "worst" acts to amplify the inherent negative intent of the noun. "Worst disaster" would be another example of this. Is this just a matter of context or there some science behind the interprettation of a negative adjective applied to a negative noun? 
Answer: The meaning is often seeming obvious and clear, but is contextual rather than strictly logical, and can be subjective and up to the speaker to decide and to communicate effectively. To use your example, "worst" in "the worst student" doesn't necessarily "simply describe the noun". e.g. it could be either something like: "Ralph was the worst student this term, attending only half the classes and failing the test." (i.e. he was worst at the class requirements) or "Of all the ill-mannered students, Jason was the worst student Mathilda had ever encountered." (i.e. Jason was the worst behaved) A clearer example of this possibility might be: "Sam received a bad blow to the face." (it's bad because the speaker sympathizes with Sam) vs. "Bob landed a good blow on the monster's wing." (it's good because the speaker is siding with Bob).
Output: no
Question: What goes in the blank? Commerce Commercial Finance Financial Trade __________ 
Answer: One word is mercantile: Related to trade [ODO].
Output: yes
Question: Are Backronym and Acronym same? I don't understand the difference between these two terms. 
Answer: A "backronym" is a "backward" acronym. It is a word or expression that is formed from an already existing word. An example is "SAD" = (Seasonal Affective Disorder). So, yes, they are different.
Output: no
Question: What is the difference between "parentheses" and "parenthesis"? 
Answer: Parenthesis is of course Greek and means in fact "insertion". It has taken the meaning of the signs " ( " or " ) ". Parentheses is the regular plural. Usually, you use a pair of the signs showing an insertion, then "between parentheses" - or brackets ; however, "in parenthesis" means : as an afterthought.
Output: yes
Question: In Russian we have the term "". I would translate it as "asshands" which literally means that your hands grow out of your behind and you can't do anything right (or do anything at all). Example: Dad: "Hey son, can you hang up this picture on the wall?" Son: "No dad, my hands grow out of my behind, I'll probably end up hanging it upside down" (Or "I am a _____" - i.e. the term I'm looking for.) Is there anything similar in English? Is the term "screw up" the one? Or are there any other ones? I want slang specifically, preferably American. 
Answer: There is a word we use called Nixie. It comes from the German word Nichtse which means a slacker/good-for-nothing. The word is very popular among the Pennsylvania Dutch community.
Output: no
Question: I've found this phrase here on a recent BBC report: "...the mare in the video died after suffering a cardiac arrest on a gallops in April 2016." The same article has: "A video on social media shows James mount the animal at a gallops while some present can be heard laughing." (emphasis mine) It's a bit of a sad story, but I want to know what "a gallops" is. Google Ngrams has some indication that it might be a phrase rather than just a typo, and also that it might be rising in popularity. TheFreeDictionary redirects me to gallop. I know what "a gallop" is. It's the plural noun ("a gallops") that I have never heard used before. It feels like some kind of horse racing meet. Any formal (or informal) definition that fits this word? Is it short for something? 
Answer: A gallops (or sometimes gallop) is a track or ground specially designed for training or exercising horses - see definition 1.3 here. They usually have a special surface, and might consist of a straight or circular track, often with a fence or rails. Note that this is a British English phrase, equivalent to the American English phrase "training track".
Output: yes
Question: In Afrikaans, it is considered very disrespectful to use "you" ( "jy") when referring to someone who is above the level of a peer. Instead, it is expected that you use "u", which is a very respectful form of "you". Also you can talk in the third person "How is ma'am today" would be the equivalent. I cringe internally when I say "How are you" to someone older than me, because in Afrikaans it would be very rude. I was bought up to only ever refer to my parents in the third person. "how is mom today", "what is dad doing" when speaking in Afrikaans. The lack of English equivalent feels very wrong and disrespectful. What is the best way to convey this in English? I have been reassured that saying "you" to a parent isn't rude, and I understand that this can be cultural, but I'm particularly looking for what options English offers in this regard, as far as existing vocabulary, that convey respect. I'm in South Africa. 
Answer: I think the US, respect tends to be expressed with posture, attitude, and content of what you say rather than with the use of specific words. Formalisms such as specific honorifics tend to feel stilted (although as others have noted, there are regional variations), but wouldn't be offensive.
Output: no
Question: Is there a name for these kind of doubled words? For example: hanky-panky flim-flam hoity-toity boo-hoo zig-zag Note that some rhyme and others do not. 
Answer: I believe the word you're looking for is reduplication. From Wikipedia: Reduplication in linguistics is a morphological process in which the root or stem of a word (or part of it) or even the whole word is repeated exactly or with a slight change. Wiktionary gives specific types: Exact type: acute-null accents; baby-talk-like bye-bye, choo-choo, night night, no-no, pee-pee, poo-poo, etc. Ablaut type: acute-grave accents, high-low vowels, front-back vowels. bric-a-brac, chit-chat, criss-cross, kitty-cat, knick-knack, jibber-jabber, splish-splash, zig-zag, sing-song, etc. Rhymed type: acute-acute accents, varied initials. claptrap, hokey-pokey, honey bunny, razzle-dazzle, slim jim, super-duper, teeny-weeny, wingding, etc.
Output: yes
Question: 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? 
Answer: I suggest that ignorant is the opposite.
Output: no
Question: I understand the capitalization rule for nouns, proper nouns require a capital letter. Also, I should begin a new sentence with a capital letter. When & why "mom/dad" requires a capital letter ? (Reference- ELL- I am at Vapi where mom is hospitalised) mom: (n) informal term for a mother/North American term for mum. 
Answer: When it is their name, Mom and Dad would be capitalised: Dear Mom and Dad, I am just writing to let you know, that although everyone has a mom and a >dad, you are my special mom and dad. So, Mom, I just want to say 'brava!'; and Dad, 'bravo!'. I've just been telling Sis, that Mom's new coat is so cool. XX Here's the commentary from an exercise from BBC English on Line ...to have a roast chicken lunch with my mother. I can't wait! - mother does not need a capital 'M' as it is not being used to replace her name. If I said, "I am going to lunch with Mum", it would need a capital letter, but "I am going to lunch with my mum" does not.
Output: yes
Question: Once when I was having a hard time a guy said to me, "I'm sorry you're having a hard time, I'll pray for you," in a way that made it clear that he was glad I was having a hard time because it gave him the opportunity to pray for me and feel good about himself. I am interested in this phenomenon but also the much more general (probably universal) phenomenon of human beings finding justification for things they want to do, often by lying to themselves about the utility of the behavior to other people. The best single word I can think of for this is contrived, but it is not close to precise. Similarly, dissembling, insincere, and so on don't really cut it. I also looked at this list of cognitive biases but was unable to find one that expressed this idea. Is there a single word for this? If not, a short phrase? 
Answer: I suggest "unconscious fallaciousness" "fallacious" (adj) - tending to deceive or mislead : delusive MW.
Output: no
Question: The meaning of Polish 'doing something on knees' or 'on a knee' is completely different than English:  s://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/on-your-knees It is rather a metaphor to a student who instead of doing his homework properly at the home, he did it in hurry, supported his notebook on knees and did it in a short break between classes. In other words it means doing something in hurry, usually resulting in poor quality and unsophisticated enough. Some usage: Who designed this building? Looks like some architect 'made it on a knee'... Or nowadays according to software engineering: There are lots of bugs in this application! They came short on deadlines and 'wrote it on their knees' even without unit tests... My question is, is there an English equivalent (in idiom or phrase) which preserves this meaning better? Edit After reading some answers I realized that my examples were a little bit misleading. In reality, the phrase does not carry itself any negative connotations about the 'author'. Rather poor quality of his job results. The only negative connotations about author we can only deduce from the quality of his job: 'He did his job inaccurately so we can assume that he may be inaccurate.' or 'You Will Know Them by Their Fruits' sort of thing. 
Answer: quick and dirty ADJECTIVE US informal Makeshift; done or produced hastily. 'a quick and dirty synopsis of their work' oxforddictionaries.com.
Output: yes
Question: What is the meaning of wrt in the following text? I think this is an excellent idea, but I'd like to see this explicitly reframed under the banner of providing Drupal.org data through publicly-accessible APIs. We started kicking off at least one discussion like that wrt Git over, which also led back to "#112805: XML-RPC Interface". 
Answer: It's an abbreviation for "with respect to". Edit: regarding the lack of punctuation (thanks for bringing it up, ukayer), that's definitely because of the informal nature of the context. It would be more standard to write it as w.r.t., except that in any context where punctuation matters, you probably shouldn't use this abbreviation in the first place.
Output: yes
Question: Somehow I am compelled to use the word "metal" to describe strong "intestinal fortitude", and perseverance however I can't find the spelling or any synonym like this. Does a word that sounds like "metal" exist when describing an individual's character? I'm looking for modern or historic usage of the word. 
Answer: Mettle Defined by Oxford Dictionaries as: a person's ability to cope well with difficulties; spirit and resilience. It is commonly seen in the phrase: (put someone) on their mettle meaning, (of a demanding situation) test someone's ability to face difficulties. 'there were regular public meetings where local MPs were put on their mettle and remorselessly pilloried' Source: ODO Other constructions are possible too, for example: test their mettle, apparently an American version (thanks, @PeterCordes) show your mettle, etc. Origins According to Merriam-Webster, mettle was, as @Sparhawk points out in the comments, originally simply a variant spelling of the word metal (which dates to at least the 13th century), and it was used in all of the same senses as its metallic relative. Over time, however, mettle came to be used mainly in figurative senses referring to the quality of someone's character, with a first known usage in 1581. Today, both words can mean "vigor and strength of spirit or temperament," but only metal is used of metallic substances.
Output: yes
Question: Is the following correct, or is there more to it? "I forgot his name" I knew his name, but I forgot it. "I forget his name" I keep forgetting his name. Where using "forget" basically means that you tried to remember this information before as well, but you couldn't then either. 
Answer: I forgot his name means I've permanently forgotten, while I forget his name means I've temporarily forgotten even though I expect to be able to remember. In a few more minutes I'll probably remember. See also the phrases "slipped my mind" or "the tip of my tongue".
Output: no
Question: "Hooker", "whore", and "prostitute" all mean whore; what are the differences between them? 
Answer: They all can mean women who sleep with men for money. Prostitute is the most technical term. Hooker seems most commonly used in the United States, while in Britain this term is reserved for a position in rugby. Whore sounds much more violent to me. If one were seeking a woman to pay to sleep with him, he probably wouldn't say "I'm looking for a whore tonight," but use hooker or prostitute. Calling someone a whore can be used to insult them, implying they sleep with many people (though for men the term would be man-whore). E.g., "She is such a whore." Going back to a previous example, "I'm looking for a whore tonight" implies more to me that he is looking for someone who is easy to sleep with, not for a prostitute. Not to say you can't use the others in an insult. From "Baby Got Back," by Sir Mix-A-Lot, we also have the opening dialogue: They only talk to her, because, she looks like a total prostitute, 'kay? But in this case the lady quoted is just saying that she looks like a prostitute, not that she is one, necessarily. If she said "She is such a prostitute," that would mean that is her profession, not that she sleeps with a lot of men for free.
Output: yes
Question: This year there were: many more people much more people Alternatively: many fewer people much fewer people Which is considered better English? 
Answer: According to Google Books Ngram Viewer, COCA, Ludwig and storywrangler, "many more people" is much more frequently used than "much more people". A search on the NOW corpus shows that "many more" modifies countable nouns while "much more" is followed by uncountable nouns in most cases. Grammatical rules do not work here. In "many more people", "many" pretends to function as an adverb, but in fact it is still an adjective. Keep in mind that language is not science. If many people use "many more people ", it will be grammatically correct eventually.
Output: no
Question: Could you tell me some suitable idioms to express this situation: A guy told you a joke, but it's not funny at all. In Japanese, we say "He slipped" or "His joke was so cold that the air got frozen," for that situation. Are there any similar phrases in English? 
Answer: A common expression for this is to fall flat (from the "idioms" section of thefreedictionary.com): fall flat if an entertainment or a joke falls flat, people do not enjoy it and do not think it is funny Several attempts at humour during his speech fell flat. if an attempt to influence people's behaviour or opinions falls flat, it fails The advertising campaign which had worked so well in the US fell flat in China. The statement that pregnancy is not an illness falls flat with many morning sickness sufferers. The first meaning is the one you're after, so you could say: I told a joke but it fell flat.
Output: yes
Question: What can I call someone (a friend) who is always asking for favours such as: if you are going downtown, can you buy this for me please or, can you lend me your car for an hour or, if you have some spare time, can you post this letter for me please because I am so busy today He doesn't seem to realise or, pretends not to, that there is a limit to asking for help or favours from other people. 
Answer: You can say that your friend is "using" you, as to describe their behavior of taking advantage of you, thus making them a "user.".
Output: no