niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Question: What does "I'm game" mean and what is its correct usage? 
Answer: "I'm game" could mean "I'm very smelly.".
Output: no
Question: For example, if I were to connect to a service with the following address: 68.146.63.194:3609 Is there a word for this type of address? I suppose I could call it just a generic address but I was wondering if there was a word for this specific type of connection.. 
Answer: It is called "Authority". Please check the image below: This picture has been taken from C# 4.0 in a Nutshell: The Definitive Reference Joseph Albahari.
Output: yes
Question: Is there any difference between the two? In a technical document I have used a phrase "this is a temporal solution" and my coworker told that he'd use "temporary" in the context. Is one of the two more correct than the second? 
Answer: Temporal refers more to a time relationship between two variables. "he started abusing alcohol after he lost his job" shows a "temporal", not "temporary" relationship between alcohol use and job loss. It kinds of establishes an association. I don't think its exactly synonymous to temporary.
Output: no
Question: I am creating a computer game in which the character needs to consume food in order to not starve to death. In the game I can display the level of how much food the character currently needs via "hunger level" - the higher this value, the more desperately the character needs food. But what I want now is to turn that around, so that this level tells how full the stomach of the character is. In German we have a word for that, "Sattigung", which means how full my stomach is (or better: how full it feels to me), it is basically the opposite of hunger. Is there a similar word in English, which means exactly that, the opposite of hunger? It might be something like "saturation", but from what I can tell this word is usually used in a technical context, like in "the saturation of a color". Can I use that "saturation" to describe the opposite of hunger of a human or animal, or is there a better word for that? 
Answer: I think the apter word is 'satiety' than 'saturation' in the OP's context. satiety thestateof beingcompletely satisfied,especiallywithfoodor pleasure, so that you could not have any more.
Output: yes
Question: How can I explain to people that the phrase off of is grammatically incorrect? I've heard this phrase used a lot, especially by Americans (though they aren't the only ones). In my understanding, off of should usually be replaced by off, as in, I took the book off the shelf as opposed to I took the book off of the shelf Am I wrong? Or is there perhaps some simple way I can explain this to most people? 
Answer: In my opinion, if you mean to say, "off of", then you should instead say, "from". For example, "Take the book off of the bookcase", when, "Take the book from the bookcase", is preferable. As I understand it, the expression "off of", is an Americanism, but the pseudo-antonym, "on of", is rarely (if not never), found in any language as far as I am aware.
Output: no
Question: There is a joke: Q: What is grey and comes in quarts? A: An elephant. Why? Why does it come in quarts? What is funny here? 
Answer: I feel like I'm walking into some kind of trolling here, but I believe the joke is based around the definition of "comes" which is synomymous with "ejaculates". In other words, the joke is implying that volume of the elephant's ejaculate is rather large: a "quart" of course being another word for a quarter of a gallon, aka two pints. The first-glance reading of "comes in quarts" would be "is available in quarts" (like milk), and the reversal of the understood meaning of "comes" is where the humour arises (if it does arise).
Output: yes
Question: In French, if I want to quantify a very small amount of time (but not fixed: it can be 5 ms or 0.1 ms) I can use a pouieme. Is there an equivalent in English? I'm not looking for an expression but for a standalone word. EDIT : In fact, I need to create a c++ class which will measure time and be equal to a 1/600s. In French, pouieme is a cute word which can means a very small but undefined amount of time. The issue is that I must write english code and that's why I would like to find a standalone equivalent. 
Answer: A 90's slang pop-culture reference would be 'mmmbop' from 1997's one hit wonder band 'Hanson' from the song with the same title.
Output: no
Question: Sometimes I go through articles and find the expression utilize, I've always been wondering if there are special cases in which it should be used instead of used. Also because google ngram clearly shows that used is used (sorry for that ;D) much more. Thanks for your help and happy new year! 
Answer: Some dictionaries gloss utilize as using something for a purpose that it is not normally employed for. But prescriptive grammarians are pretty clear on such use. Fowler in Modern English Usage (p670) says: If differentiation were possible between utilize and use it would be that utilize has the special meaning of make good use of, especially of something that was not intended for the purpose but will serve. But this distinction has disappeared beyond recall; utilize is now ordinarily treated as a LONG VARIANT of use. A form is enclosed herewith for favour of your utilization is an example of the pretentious diction that prefers the long word. Partidge in Usage and Abusage (p343) is typically blunt: utilize is, 99 times out of 100, much inferior to use; the other one time it is merely inferior. And here is the more contemporary Grammar Girl's similar take on the issue. Nevertheless, this Usage Note from TheFreeDictionary indicates when utilize might indeed be the better choice: A number of critics have remarked that utilize is an unnecessary substitute for use. It is true that many occurrences of utilize could be replaced by use with no loss to anything but pretentiousness, for example, in sentences such as They utilized questionable methods in their analysis or We hope that many commuters will continue to utilize mass transit after the bridge has reopened. But utilize can mean "to find a profitable or practical use for." Thus the sentence The teachers were unable to use the new computers might mean only that the teachers were unable to operate the computers, whereas The teachers were unable to utilize the new computers suggests that the teachers could not find ways to employ the computers in instruction.
Output: yes
Question: I would tend to write double-l, but Google gives me more single-l, so I'm guessing it's an Atlantic divide thing. And I guess all the other *full words. 
Answer: Only full is spelled with two Ls. All other -ful words are spelled with only one L: helpful, successful, skillful, beautiful.
Output: no
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.
Output: yes
Question: This is similar to a palindrome but, instead of a word/sentence that reads the same forwards and backward, is there a word for words/sentences that read the same right side up and upside-down? See picture below where the word "yeah" is written in cursive: 
Answer: Another answer is symmetric, although that's a broader term. More specific: that it has rotational symmetry. Even more specific: symmetric under a 180 rotation, or it has 180 rotational symmetry. A mathematician might say that it has the symmetries of a parallelogram.
Output: no
Question: In computer programming, when you append a "string" to another, you add it to the end of the former string. E.g. String string1 = "abcd"; String string2 = "efgh"; Appending the two strings would give "abcdefgh" But what if I wanted to add string2 before string1 to have the result: "efghabcd" What would be a good name for that that reverse operation? What is the opposite of "append"? 
Answer: Prepend: (computing, linguistics, transitive) To attach (an expression, phrase, etc.) to another, as a prefix.
Output: yes
Question: What's the difference in meaning between "register" and "registry"? Can both be used interchangeably when talking about an official (public) list of items, records? 
Answer: Registry is a place of registration or a book or list in which registration is made. Registration is the act of registration, so a registration number is a number under which something such as a company or a person is registered. A registry number, however, is the number given to a place of registration or a book or list of registration, since too many of them may be around, but that number is not large, say, in five digits mostly because there are only a limited number of registration places or books or lists that are in existence for every particular purpose while a registration number involving companies, items, goods or persons may be as large as 16 digits and more and may comprise from letters and digits both, because there a great many numbers of those items or companies or persons who are registered.
Output: no
Question: Possible Duplicate: "If I was" or "If I were". Which is more common, and which is correct? Is this correct grammar? What if there was a Stack Overflow on Shouldn't it be "what if there were a Stack Overflow on"? 
Answer: Prescriptively, you're correct, this should be were since this is being expressed with the subjunctive mood. Descriptively, I think you'll find both in the wild. In informal speech, most people I know would prefer was in this case (and those that don't are sticklers for the subjunctive). I do think that you are much more likely to see were written though, especially in formal writing. Either form is correct, and the subjunctive forms are far from dead. A more interesting question, I think, is whether or not the subjunctive mood is still being used and if the two forms have simply collapsed together. Is this a meaningful distinction? How could this be tested?.
Output: yes
Question: We have racism, which implies hate against one or more races. We have sexism, which implies hate against one of the sexes. We have nationalism, which implies hate against one or more nationalities. Is there such a single word for hate against one or more religions? I realize that this might be difficult to answer because some religions closely identify with certain races and/or nationalities. If it makes it easier, the question can be narrowed down to Christianity, specifically, or broadened to describe a general hatred for all religion. 
Answer: No -ism implies hate. It implies the belief in a value derived from the things the -ism relates to. Nationalism implies the belief that different nations are of different value. Sexism implies that different sexes have different value. It does not imply hate. A -phobia, however, implies fear, literally, but often is used in a wider sense meaning avoidance, distance, and (sometimes) hate. So what you are looking for is a religiophobia. But with just around 5k hits on Google, this word still seems to be kind of uncommon and made-up.
Output: no
Question: E.g. is short for exempli gratia, and is in common use to introduce an example within a sentence. Submit a sample of academic writing, e.g., a dissertation chapter. However, some authors use ex. or ex: (short for "example") for the same purpose, and this form is listed in some authorities like the Wiktionary. Submit a sample of academic writing, ex: a dissertation chapter. I know they both roughly mean "example", but which one should I use, and when? Are there connotations associated with one or the other? This question has been asked elsewhere, and this very answer comes up when you ask Google about the difference. It would be good to get an EL&U answer for it. 
Answer: "Ex." is not very common, but it may be used to refer to a cited example, eg "See ex. 3". "E.g." is much more common, and is used to introduce an example, or series of examples. In speech, it is usually replaced by "for example".
Output: no
Question: This is a question for English wordsmiths. Is there a word that "feels" like the word "ethereal" that means something ethereal that quickly disappears. Or is "ethereal" the correct word choice for this? Ethereal was the first word that popped into my head for this. From the various definitions that I've looked at for ethereal, it says delicate, beautiful, heavenly, etc. but not necessarily quickly vanishing, except for the secondary definitions related to ether that suggests it evaporates. I'm just wondering if there is a better word than this. I'm using the term "ethereal skill" to describe a certain type of pilot skill (instrument flying) that requires tremendous practice to achieve proficiency, and once proficiency is achieved it is a beautiful thing, but if you don't practice it regularly, that skill vanishes after a few weeks. USAGE: Instrument proficiency is an ethereal skill that once obtained must be maintained through constant and regular practice. 
Answer: You are probably looking for the word ephemeral. ephemeral: Lasting for a very short time.
Output: yes
Question: When should whilst be used instead of while? For example, should I use the first or the second sentence? They don't do this whilst they do that. They don't do this while they do that. Which would be correct? 
Answer: The two words 'while' and 'whilst' mean the same thing. They could be considered alternate pronunciations of the same word, similar to among/amongst or further/farther. 'While' came first, and then 'whilst' was derived from it. But they are not used with the same frequency and they give different 'feels'. 'While' is much more common (from Google nGrams) 'Whilst' sounds archaic, affected, or hyperacademic (which means no one in academia uses it). To Americans, 'whilst' sounds British, but at least in print, there is very little difference in the frequencies of the two words between AmE and BrE (via Google nGrams) In the end, it is correct grammar to use them interchangeably, but it is bad style...uh sorry, not the current fashion to use 'whilst'. No one (at least not in formal writing, like for newspapers or academic writing) uses 'whilst' anymore. It may be common and accepted in certain varieties of English (say Indian English) but is very jarring in standard English. However, in the 18th century the two were on more equal terms. The classic study of text analysis by Mosteller and Wallace to help discover the authorship of the Federalist papers was based primarily on the use of differentiating pairs like this.
Output: no
Question: Possible Duplicate: Do you use "a" or "an" before acronyms? I got the following sentence from the book I'm reading: You can take a database-first approach by first creating a SQL Server database schema. From what I learned, I think it should be "an SQL Server database schema", not "a SQL Server database schema". So which one is correct? 
Answer: This depends, I would think, on your pronunciation of SQL. It can be pronounced as "sequel", or spelled out as "S-Q-L". That perhaps doesn't help in written English. A thoroughly scientific survey of Google throws up many more hits for "an SQL" than "a SQL". This is also the form used on that Wikipedia article and elsewhere, such as this Microsoft SQL Server documentation entitled "Executing an SQL Query".
Output: yes
Question: I'm trying to find a humorous term for someone who still has an overdue library book after a number of years. I first came up with "delinquent lendee", but I'm sure there's something more apropos or alliterative. 
Answer: (Just checked to make sure you're an American over 30) How about Costanza or even "Can't Stands Ya".
Output: no
Question: Everybody deals with this phenomenon daily but I had my curiousity piqued when someone claimed that punishing the many for the actions of the few was just called "group punishment." Group Punishment is simply punishing a large group of people. Is there a specific word for when a large group is punished because of the actions of the few? Such as in the following: Little Jimmy wasn't happy when the entire class was forced to work through recess because of 3 kids getting into a fight yesterday. 
Answer: Collective punishment is the formal expression: Penalty imposed on every member of a group without regard to his or her involvement in the group's actions and conduct. Related: collective responsibility. (www.businessdictionary.com) Is collective punishment fair in the classroom?: Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishment is considered a war crime. "No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible." Unfortunately for our students they do not have rights as general citizens or even our war enemies and common criminals in society. They shed their rights as they enter the double doors of the school and us parents shed our ability to ask for fair treatment of our children.
Output: yes
Question: I'm referring to the peculiar habit I sometimes see in formal documents, where a number is given numerically after it's spelled out. It seems quite redundant: I need five (5) kumquats, stat! (Though it isn't always in a legal context, might it be related to this answer on this question?) 
Answer: I looked into this myself recently and couldn't find a definitive answer. The best I came up with was that numeric values in a formal document or contract are often crucial to its purpose. Restating a number in parentheses after spelling it out is a way to ensure the reader that the number is correct. It also draws the eye to the numbers, allowing for quick perusal of a document, say a purchase order. These are practical reasons; whether there is some historic reason for it I do not know.
Output: no
Question: Possible Duplicate: What day is next Tuesday? Imagine that it's Monday, the 1st. The weekend would be the 6th & 7th. How do you refer properly to the coming weekend, "This weekend" or "Next weekend"? I believe that using "next weekend" would refer to the 13th & 14th and "this weekend" would refer to this week's end. Technically the coming weekend (6th & 7th) would be the next weekend on the calendar. So which is correct? I'm hoping for a definitive answer with backing since this is an argument over opinion. 
Answer: The issue isn't as definitive as you might think. Ultimately, it comes down to what interpretation of "next" you consider to be correct. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed) defines 'next' simply as Immediately following, as in time, order, or sequence Following this definition, "next weekend" will always mean the weekend with the start date in closes proximity in time. If the phrase is used during a weekend, of course, you'd be referring to the weekend following the one you are currently experiencing. However, the issue gets more complicated if you look to other definitions. The Oxford American Dictionary has a specific definition for 'next' when used in the context of time: (of a day of the week) nearest (or the nearest but one) after the present : not this Wednesday, next Wednesday Here, we're given the choice: it can either mean the weekend with the closest start date, or the following one (as specified by the parenthetical addition or the nearest but one). This definition has come about mostly because of usage development. Many words and phrases in the english dictionary have meanings contrary to their technical definitions, and yet are still used commonly and considered valid. Thus, while technically "next" implies immediate sequence, it is used in other ways (which dictionaries like the OAD have accommodated for validity), so it's really a matter of personal preference. For example, it is unlikely that I will even use the phrase "next weekend" during the week, because some people might be confused as to what I am referring to. Instead, I will say "this weekend," unless it is currently the weekend, in which case I will say "next weekend.".
Output: yes
Question: It is ironic that the name of a mental device which is supposed to make our lives easier is itself so hard to spell. Is there a mnemonic for the spelling of mnemonic? 
Answer: Hmmm? How to remember how to spell nemonic? (sic) Hmmm! Spell phonetically by jogging your memory... mnemonic.
Output: no
Question: Possible Duplicate: Which is the proper spelling: "disfunction" or "dysfunction"? What's the rationale behind dysfunctional being spelled dys- and not dis-? 
Answer: From WordReference.com on Dysfunction vs. Disfunction: dys- is a Greek prefix meaning "bad", "abnormal", "difficult", or "impaired". dis- is a Latin prefix with none of the above meanings. dys- has the right meaning, but function is a Latin word. Hence the confusion. Latin dis- can mean "lack of", "not", "opposite of", "away from". This all explains why something dys-functional has a bad or abnormal function, rather than a lack of function that dis-functional implies.
Output: yes
Question: 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. 
Answer: Lieutenant in British English is pronounced with an f: /lftnnt/.
Output: yes
Question: I need to find a shortened format (abbreviation) for the words "look at" (to be used when referring people to another website). For example: Example given e.g 
Answer: The latinate abbreviation (corresponding to "e.g." for exempli gratia) is "q.v." for quod vide = "which see", to direct someone elsewhere for further information. If it's an abbreviation you want, that's the perfect fit. As other answers point out, however, "see" is even shorter, and provides more clarity. While "q.v." is common enough in some academic writing, it's not exactly common parlance. My own sense is that "cf." should not be used here (even though it is in the "accepted" answer): it has a real meaning, and that meaning is "compare". From the question, that isn't the intended meaning. It is properly used in situations to contrast one thing with another (see also the advice from the the APA blog on the use of "cf.").
Output: no
Question: Suppose I tell something to my companion and I want to make sure he understands me. I thought I may simply ask "Do you understand me?". But recently I heard that in such cases I should ask "Does that make sense?" instead. Is this true? Which option is appropriate to use in business communication? 
Answer: "Do you understand me?" slightly carries the implication that it is your fault if you do not understand. "Does it make sense?" carries the implication that it is my fault if you do not understand. So politeness suggests that the latter is better.
Output: yes
Question: I'm currently writing an article that includes two contexts of communication: effectiveness and competence. Incompetent people can misuse terminology all day and the ideas are effective and do technically work. However I'm looking for a word or term that has two or more meanings and the misuse of could lead to bodily harm or even death; this is to promote the idea of the aspect of competently communicating one's ideas. What word if not used competently could end up leading to injury or death in a context that most people could understand with little-to-no explanation? 
Answer: Alcohol In general use, a drink, as in "I'll be drinking alcohol tonight, so I should not drive". In a chemist's usage, alcohol describes a range of compounds, many of which would kill or maim a human if swallowed.
Output: no
Question: What is the correct spelling, dammit or damnit? And what is the difference? Just writing this question brings up a red squiggly underneath damnit and the suggestions include dammit and damn it. 
Answer: The usage stats from the British National Corpus (BNC) look as follows: ALL SPOKEN FICTION MAGAZINE NEWSPAPER ACADEMIC NON-ACAD MISC dammit 125 3 99 3 8 0 7 5 damnit no results damn it 158 12 137 1 1 0 2 5 And here are the stats from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): ALL SPOKEN FICTION MAGAZINE NEWSPAPER ACADEMIC dammit 763 20 647 60 30 6 damnit 94 2 86 6 0 0 damn it 1307 83 1112 58 36 18 The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA) paints the following picture: (X axis: year, Y axis: incidences per million words).
Output: yes
Question: Is there a single word to describe birds that can fly? Am I struggling to think of a word because the default notion of a bird is that it can fly? So we generally only need to differentiate the ones that can't fly. I've seen the term "winged" in a few google searches, but to my mind an ostrich is winged, but it is also flightless. I guess I'm looking for the word you'd put into this blank: Penguins are flightless because they cannot fly. Ostriches are flightless because they cannot fly. Pigeons are ____ because they can fly. 
Answer: In German we have it easy: 'flugfahig' and 'flugunfahig'. Deepl gave me this translation So it might be airworthy you are searching for, though it may only be used for contraptions and not for animals.
Output: no
Question: These two seem very similar. What are the major differences between the two? For example, in the following sentence, Substitute the lesser punishment for the greater one. Can one use "less" instead of "lesser" here? 
Answer: Less refers to quantity, lesser refers to quality. Your sentence could be rephrased as "substitute less punishment for more punishment." Here we are saying that the amount of punishment is smaller. But if you say "substitute the lesser punishment" you are saying the type of punishment is not as severe. Forty lashes is less punishment than 100 lashes. Being pelted with rotten tomatoes is a lesser punishment than being pelted with rocks.
Output: yes
Question: A friend posed the following word puzzle to me: Can you think of a sentence that keeps the same meaning whether you use "it's" or "its"? He asserted that this puzzle does in fact have a solution. However, it has me completely stumped. I tried to solve an easier problem, to find a sentence which is still grammatical if you change an "its" to "it's", but all I could come up with is examples like "It's light!" (which is, strictly, more of a sentence fragment). What is the solution to the word puzzle? Or, is there some way I can "prove" that the puzzle should have no solution? 
Answer: 'It's just what its supposed to be.' or 'Its just what it's supposed to be.'.
Output: no
Question: My wife is always accusing me of casting aspersions and I'd like to do something else with them. Please advise. 
Answer: You can also sprinkle them. [aspersion: (n) An attack on somebody's reputation or good name, often in the phrase to cast aspersions upon (Dict.com)] (label) ...a sprinkling of [aspersions] Merriam-Webster: "sprinkle" def: scatter or pour small drops or particles of a substance over (an object or surface). Maybe a sprinkling of aspersions will make them appear more tiny vs. this casting aspersions upon her. Perhaps a sprinkling of aspersions sounds less inoffensive; somewhat harmless, or innocuous--somehow. Seem like a piddling of aspersions. Maybe because there's less of them. I don't know. Sometimes, if I apply a sprinkling of aspersions on my wife instead of casting, she thinks them funny. Try a sprinkling of aspersions instead. If that doesn't work, you can always go back to casting aspersions upon her, or even try dusting or powdering her with aspersions. See if that works. Good luck!.
Output: yes
Question: When one buys a house with a fully done basement, is it known as a furnished basement or a finished basement? I've heard both used, but I was always under the impression that the right usage is a furnished basement. I thought, being that the words sound similar, the two terms became confused and eventually interchangeable, but perhaps both are correct. Regardless, any logical, coherent answer to this question would be appreciated! 
Answer: Given that a basement is the lowest habitable part of a building (wholly or partly underground, were it not finished, it wouldn't be habitable, I'd have thought. But an ordinary room in a house above ground level may well be finished, but waiting for furniture, which, when it is installed, makes the room furnished. Without furniture, a room, anywhere, is said to be unfurnished. Therefore, a basement, or any room, can be finished, but unfurnished. If it was furnished, it pretty well has to be assumed that it was a finished room before putting furniture in it. It is quite possible that an estate agent may massage things, and advertise a finished basement as a furnished basement, or vice versa, to encourage 'good' marketing...
Output: no
Question: I've seen many people who say: This is a HTML page. Yet I've also seen many people who say: This is an HTML page. Are both usages equally correct? Or, which is the grammatically correct one? Possible Duplicates: "A" vs. "An" in writing vs. pronunciation Do you use "a" or "an" before acronyms? 
Answer: It depends on whether you say aitch or haitch. An aitch tee em el page A haitch tee em el page.
Output: yes
Question: Is there a semantic difference between engine and motor? In some cases, would the use of one or the other word be technically incorrect? 
Answer: The real difference, is the fact that "motors" run on electricity, while "engines" run on combustion. However, many people interchange the usage of these words: On the rare occasions we encounter one, we refer to a steam locomotive as an engine, the same word that we give to the motive power of an aircraft. But all electrical devices are driven by motors. In Britain at least, one's personal transport is a motor car (with compounds such as motor trade, motor vehicle and motor sport), even though it's always powered by an engine. Small boats may have outboard motors and then are often called motor boats. From a mechanic: So, what is the difference between an engine and a motor? Motors are electric. Electricity powers motors. Engines are powered by come sort of pressure or combustion, ie: steam engines, automobile engines, diesel engines. Pretty simple, really.
Output: no
Question: English isn't my mother tongue, and when we recently talked to a native speaker (during some company audit), he pointed out that the plural word "trainings" is actually wrong (he pointed that it is a very common mistake and was almost amused by it). I couldn't understand why and wondered what the correct plural of "training" would be. Online Dictionaries/Thesaurus don't answer it, so it's probably another opinion-based statement. I haven't found a source to back it up, though. 
Answer: Training is both countable and uncountable. Usually, referring to a process, it is uncountable and has no plural. It is sometimes used to mean "a specific training event", and is then countable, and has the plural "trainings". The OED has examples of this use going back to 1578, with the plural recorded from 1598.
Output: yes
Question: Exact Duplicate: Can anyone tell me what the suffix "-fu" stands for in the following sentence? I was reading an article on MSDN where I found a mention to google-fu. It says, "To search for C++ delimeters and code snippets is going to take a little Google-fu on the reader's part." what does google-fu mean? 
Answer: Google-fu is defined as "skill in using search engines (especially Google) to quickly find useful information on the Internet." It is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek reference to kung-fu, which is generally perceived as requiring a high degree of skill to master in the western hemisphere. In the example sentence you provided, the author is suggesting that the expected results are somewhat difficult to attain and you will need to use diligence when searching. I used a bit of Google-fu to research this answer.
Output: yes
Question: For example In Sim Lim Square cheat cases, a person paid $1k for iPhone insurance. He "agreed" to buy it because the price was not clearly written. In some restaurants, prices are not written clearly and people can then be charged exorbitant prices. Insurance costs can vary by up to 100 times because the cost is simply not written clearly. Many politicians use deceptive language. Also, they tend to tell only the benefits without telling the negatives. Say you are a scientist. You have 10 studies supporting your theory and 90 studies showing you are wrong. You only quote the 10 studies to people that can't expect. All of these are deceptions that would make people choose really really "bad deals". Is there a word to describe such deceptions? Lying? Sophism? Fraud? Scam? Pull a fast one? What? 
Answer: vulgar Bullshit or crap or similar expressions "Excuse me, professor, but you're pulling your data out of your ass." "Those price gouges are bullshit." "Charging me extra for sour cream on the loaded nachos is crap." "Everyone knows Donald Trump is full of shit.".
Output: no
Question: When it comes to cities and boats named after saints, it seems that "Santa" is always female and "San" is always male. e.g. Male Saints: San Diego, San Francisco, San Antonio Female Saints: Santa Barbara, Santa Maria So why isn't "Santa Claus" a woman like all the other "Santa"s? 
Answer: The city names you quote are all derived from Spanish, where "San" (or "Santo", as @tchrist clarifies below) is the male inflection and "Santa" the female one. However, Santa Claus isn't derived from Spanish, but from Dutch, where it was originally rendered as Sante Klaas, and was modified to Santa when it was adopted into English (and from English, to the rest of the world). Here's Etymonline's take on it: from dialectal Dutch Sante Klaas, from Middle Dutch Sinter Niklaas "Saint Nicholas," English, like all other languages, borrows words from many sources, and they often carry over remnants of their original grammar or usage, even when it makes for inconsistent usage in English.
Output: yes
Question: I need a single-word to describe something good that (unexpectedly) resulted from something bad. This good thing could not have occurred without the bad event happening first, as a precursor. Example sentence: "I got in a horrible car accident and broke my leg, but falling in love with my nurse at the hospital was the ____," (something like that). 
Answer: The word irony has undergone a bit of a semantic shift and is often used for a perceived contradiction, among others a contradiction between one's expectations and an actual fact or event. Merriam-Webster gives as one of its meanings incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result and continues with examples in which the outcome is worse than expected; but it can be used for better outcomes as well, like in your case: "Falling in love with the nurse was the irony of my accident." Or "ironically, getting fired was the best thing that had happened to me in a long time".
Output: no
Question: Possible Duplicate: How should I punctuate around quotes? When should end punctuation go inside quotes? Or is it region specific? I was always taught that when ending a quotation, that punctuation remains inside of the quote. I think he said, "we should go to the store." Are you sure he said, "we should go to the store?" As opposed to: I think he said, "we should go to the store". Are you sure he said, "we should go to the store"? This is just an arbitrary example off of the top of my head, and it's hard for me to come up with an example for the second usage because it looks completely wrong to me. I actually got into a small argument with my girlfriend earlier this year because she uses something similar to the second example, and said that's how she was taught (which is why I ask if it's region-specific.) Anyway, is there a correct usage for ending a quotation with punctuation? 
Answer: In American English, commas and periods go inside the quotation marks. Semi-colons, question marks and exclamation marks go inside the quotation marks only if they're part of the quotation. E.g., "What time is it?" he asked. Did he really say, "I don't care"? So your example should be the following: I think he said, "we should go to the store." Are you sure he said, "we should go to the store"?.
Output: yes
Question: I'm looking for an idiom or expression that means someone just makes frustrating or disappointing remarks. Maybe some of you have watched the TV cartoon 'The adventures of Gulliver' in which there was as a character named "Glum". He was all the time pessimistic about everything and used statements like: "We'll never make it"; "We'll never get out of here alive"; and "We're doomed." I want to use that idiom or expression in examples like this: Husband: After getting my promotion, I will take you to a fantastic trip. Wife: Oh, stop talking nonsense! I know It won't never happen, it's impossible you get a promotion. Husband: You remind me of 'Glum'! All the time _____ (i.e. acting like Glum, just having a gloomy outlook on everything). Please stop using such remarks and be a little optimistic! I have found wet blanket for describing such people. PS: We Iranians use an expression that literally says "to read a frustrating or disappointing verse". So in above example, the husband might reply like this: Hey Glum, the only thing you know is reading a frustrating/ disappointing verse! (Sometimes we call these people 'Glum'.) 
Answer: I've always referred to those personalities as "Eeyores," from the Winnie the Pooh character.
Output: no
Question: Possible Duplicates: How to phrase an asking sentence that must be answered with an ordinal number? Framing a question whose answer is an ordinal number Given that I want to know Barack Obama is the 44th President of U.S.A, how can I frame a question like: The how manyeth president is Barack Obama? 
Answer: I'd go with the following structure: Q: Where does Obama fall in the sequence of US presidents? A: [He's the] 44th [president]. This reflects similar usage when discussing, for instance, rankings: Q: Where did Harvard fall on the U.S. News & World Report list this year? A: 2nd.
Output: yes
Question: Not quite sure how to word this, but I'm looking for an idiom or phrase/saying that describes when somebody who's done nothing to deserve it has hit a streak of bad luck. Wish I could be more descriptive, but that's about as well as I can elaborate on the idea. 
Answer: To be snakebit Definifion see here: [link].
Output: no
Question: The question is quite straightforward: Which of the following is preferable? "I keep myself up-to-date on the latest technology." "I keep myself up to date on the latest technology." 
Answer: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, as quoted by the site below, you hyphenate if the compound adjective is before the noun and don't hyphenate if it is after the noun. With compound adjectives formed from the adverb well and a participle (e.g., well-known), or from a phrase (e.g., up-to-date), you should use a hyphen (or hyphens) when the compound comes before the noun: well-known brands of coffee; an up-to-date account, but not when the compound comes after the noun: His music was also well known in England. Their figures are up to date. From Oxford Dictionaries via Adverbs and Hyphens by Maeve Maddox for Daily Writing Tips. In this case the noun is myself and before the adjective, so no hyphen. In other styles, this may not necessarily hold true. For instance, in APA style, hyphens are discouraged unless they add clarity.
Output: yes
Question: I must admit that I'm unsure whether or not this is the right forum for this question. It may belong to statistics and AI also. If there exists a more suitable forum, then tell me. The thing is, I want to analyse a lot of English text for an AI project (Confabulation theory). Is there an online collection of freely available English texts? Books, news would be preferred scientific texts will properly not do, due to large amounts of math etc. 
Answer: And for modern texts, there are a lot of blogs which use various Creative Commons licenses, most commonly CC BY-SA.
Output: no
Question: Are both is equal to and equals similar in meaning? Which is the more natural? For example, one plus one equals two or one plus one is equal to two. 
Answer: Both are grammatically correct and mean the same. And both are the natural ways of saying it. Use either.
Output: yes
Question: As a programmer I use the word Authentication and the word Authorisation in my code. I'd like to find nice abbreviations or alternative words for each of them that are not ambiguous and has reasonably large 'psychological distance' between. i.e. they don't look too similar i.e 'Auth' is not OK because it is ambiguous. At the moment I have just removed some letters Authtictn Authristn Any suggestions? 
Answer: What about this: Auth'ze Auth'tion? We were tought to put aphostrophoes somewhere to shorten a word.
Output: no
Question: The phrase "I miss you" can be equivocal: suggestive of (a) romantic longing and/or (b) regret of loss. Certainly, context can shape its meaning, including geography, historical period, and the speakers and their relationships. Given the circumstances in which it would be desirable to eliminate ambiguity, such as a platonic friendship, is there an alternative phrase for expressing (b) without (a)? 
Answer: "I'm feeling lonely without you", "Times are dull with you away" could express the sens of loss without being too emphatic.
Output: no
Question: What's the difference between everytime and every time? I'm a little confused about them, they both seem to have same meaning. Excluding their spelling, are there any other differences between them? 
Answer: The difference is that "everytime" is not a word, and "every time" means all occurrences: "Every time I go to the beach, I get a sunburn." You may be thinking of the difference between "everyday" and "every day." The former is an adjective that can mean either daily or ordinary and common, and the latter is an adverb meaning each day: "I don't have any fancy clothes. I wear everyday clothes every day.".
Output: yes
Question: Is there a word for reverse homesickness? Let's say, if you visit a place, and you like it so much, you don't want to leave. 
Answer: "You can't go home again." The sentiment of feeling unwelcome or uneasy in your hometown, or simply disliking it, is often referenced by quoting or mis-quoting the title of Thomas Wolfe's novel, "You can't go home again." Wolfe's novel deals with an author who writes a best-selling book about his hometown and as a result finds himself unwelcome there.
Output: no
Question: "Vomit" is not a recent addition to English, and nor does it have a peculiar pronunciation. Yet, the past tense of vomit does not follow the notion that a vowel followed by a consonant and emphasis on the consonant. (For example, past tense of 'emit' is 'emitted'.) 
Answer: The crucial thing is that the last but one syllable of "vomited" has no stress. Not even secondary stress. So the final consonant doesn't double. By contrast, the last but one syllable of "emitted" has stress (because the last syllable of "emit" has stress). This issue is raised in this question, to which a good answer is given. Compare: (No stress) marketed, budgeted, edited (Secondary stress) combatted, formatted (Primary stress) patted, petted, pitted, potted, rutted.
Output: yes
Question: Is there a proverb that fits the following situation: John and Anderson (while walking): John: [sees a $100 bill lying in the road, and shouts] Yahoo! $100! Anderson: [takes the money and puts it into his pocket] Reflection: John exclaimed when he saw the money in the road, but he didn't try to take it. Anderson was smarter, as, when he saw John exclaiming, he took the money and put it into his pocket. Consequently, John now repents his foolish excitement. My question is, is there a proverb for such situations? EDIT: When I asked my friend, he suggested the following saying: "Some feel the rain others just get wet." 
Answer: One very common, albiet obnoxious phrase would be: Finders, keepers; Losers, weepers While this generally relates to the idea that once you find something that appears to be unowned - it is now your property - and not necessarily the idea of missing out on something, because you were too slow to act on it. It's such a common phrase in childhood, that it can be applied obnoxiously to imply "now that I've picked it up, it's mine - you cannot complain about it". In this case, the one who picked it up first would consider themself the "Finder" and the one who lost out on it (the original owner, and the person who was too slow to pick it up) would be considered the "Loser". Again, it's not a perfect phrase for this situation, but it is such a common idiom that it does get applied frequently to these kind of situations.
Output: no
Question: I am looking for a word or phrase which can be used in the sentence: It is a rather old, but _________________ technology. The word or phrase should address a technology that is totally investigated, researched in detail, and thoroughly optimised, so there is nothing more to find out or improve. 
Answer: I don't know of a technology that cannot be improved, but we often use the term mature to describe technology that's deemed developed enough to be left alone: A mature technology is a technology that has been in use for long enough that most of its initial faults and inherent problems have been removed or reduced by further development. In some contexts, it may also refer to technology that has not seen widespread use, but whose scientific background is well understood. Wikipedia mature 6. No longer subject to great expansion or development. Used of an industry, market, or product. American Heritage® Dictionary.
Output: yes
Question: English isn't my mother tongue, and when we recently talked to a native speaker (during some company audit), he pointed out that the plural word "trainings" is actually wrong (he pointed that it is a very common mistake and was almost amused by it). I couldn't understand why and wondered what the correct plural of "training" would be. Online Dictionaries/Thesaurus don't answer it, so it's probably another opinion-based statement. I haven't found a source to back it up, though. 
Answer: I agree with Mick that training is an uncountable noun. In the example given by Mr. Fine of a specific training event allowing training to become countable, I disagree. In the case of becoming countable, the portion being counted is the event. Therefor, it would be "there are multiple training events available at the pavilion" (or whatever). I see many cases where much effort is made to "fix" the plural when a simple rewording will eliminate the contentious context and allow an, arguably, better flow by using the standard form.
Output: no