niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Question: Today, I received a folder of Recruiting candidate CVs from one of our HR. In this folder, there is a sub-folder named "pass". Question is does this "pass" mean the CVs inside are OK or not OK? If I want to mean the CVs in the folder that are not OK, what exact word should I use? 
Answer: EDIT: I gather from the comments below that the meaning of this word is highly region dependent and has the exact opposite meaning in the UK. The correct answer is probably: "This word is ambiguous and you are best served by requesting clarification." -- Origonal answer for posterity The ambiguity has been previously stated. Linguistically it can either mean "The candidate passes our screening checks" or "We're going to pass over this candidate and keep searching" In my experience (ten years hiring in Silicon Valley) this ALWAYS means we are not interested in this candidate. We will pass on them. It doesn't hurt to clarify but there's a strong chance these are "No" candidates. If you want to take a moment to dig through the sub-folder you will probably identify one or two who are clearly not qualified and this would support interpreting "pass" as "no".
Output: no
Question: A few years ago I was told not to use that word because, in addition to its negative meaning, it comes from Latin denigratus, past participle of denigrare, which means to blacken. Therefore, "to denigrate someone" would be "to blacken that person". Considering its current definition (see below) and the wish to be politically correct, I wonder whether the word has come to acquire any racist overtone. The reason why I'm asking is because I was reading "Language Myths" a book by Laurie Bauer recently, and came across this passage which contained that word "...certain educational institutions denigrate the way certain ethnic minorities and lower-working-class children talk." Then I remembered I was once told not to use "denigrate" as it might be misinterpreted by some people. denigrate - from Merriam-Webster 1. to say very critical and often unfair things about (someone) 2. to attack the reputation of, to deny the importance or validity of, belittle EDIT (on Dec 17th, 2017) - This article, Dark Words Of Disapproval which Mari-Lou A mentions in one of the comments, shows very clearly the writer's feelings about this word, with very good arguments to bear him out. Then again, there are those who think otherwise. For one, Melvin B. Tolson, the character played by Denzel Washington in the 2007 feature film "The Great Debaters", says the word has racist undertones. - Edit (on May 6th, 2020) 
Answer: I don't see why this question has received such negative responses. I think it's a good question. "Blacken" indeed has a trans-historical meaning associated with vilification or corruption, but this has nothing to do with the inherent qualities of black people, animals, or the vast majority of black things. Would you consider the term "blacklist" racist? If not, then you shouldn't see "denigrate" as racist. Anyone who does is being a little silly. If you're worried, you could always replace it with "disparage." EDIT: Another example is use of the term "sinister" to mean "wicked." This word comes from Latin "sinister," meaning "left" or "on the left side." Over time, the mythologized connection of the left hand to the false or unfavorable came to give "sinister" an association with the unsavory. This does not mean that we cannot use "sinister" to mean "wicked," or that doing so would impugn left-handed people.
Output: yes
Question: I wrote this sentence: Why wouldn't it be valid? --and I realized that without the contraction it becomes: Why would it not be valid? As opposed to "why would not it be valid," as the contraction would imply. What's going on here? Why can I contract across the middle word this way? Or, to put it the other way, why can't I "de-contract" this without moving the not over by a word? 
Answer: Even though the standard term for these combinations of an auxiliary + -n't is "contractions", grammatically they act like single, indivisible words*; rather than like two words slurred together (though that was evidently their historical origin). This single word is a auxiliary, so it goes in the normal position for an auxiliary in an interrogative sentence: after the question-word and before the subject. Why wouldn't it be valid? Question word - auxiliary - subject - [rest of sentence] When you use "would not," on the other hand, you have two words: the auxiliary "would", and the distinct word "not" (a word that doesn't fit very well into the general part-of-speech categories). The auxiliary again goes into the normal position for an auxiliary. The word "not" has its own, different rules for where it goes in a sentence. Why would it not be valid? Question word - auxiliary - subject - [rest of sentence] *In fact, some linguists think the negative suffix in these words is best analyzed as an inflection in modern English, like the suffix "-s" used in third person.
Output: yes
Question: The meaning of Polish 'doing something on knees' or 'on a knee' is completely different than English. 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: Haste makes waste. Haste is analogous to fast. Waste in this context means poor quality.
Output: no
Question: Someone told me that I shouldn't use the phrase discuss about, but should say, instead, discuss (the topic). He said discuss means talk about and using discuss about is like saying talk about about, which is redundant. Is he correct? Could somebody elaborate on this? 
Answer: Your friend is correct. You can discuss something, or you can talk about it, but discuss about is redundant for the reason you identified. discuss: to speak with another or others about But if you want to use the word about, you can have a conversation about, confer about, debate about, or even have a powwow about. Most of the other synonyms for discuss don't take about, nor is it needed to converse (or debate).
Output: yes
Question: What goes in the blank? Commerce Commercial Finance Financial Trade __________ 
Answer: finance is to financial and trade is to enterprise.
Output: no
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: The phrase that describes the act of matching skill/performance according to degree of hardness is "rise to the occasion." I am not aware of a single word that is synonymous with this concept.
Output: yes
Question: Is it more correct to say a computer program is erroring out, or it is erring out? Or are both statements grammatically incorrect? 
Answer: erroring error (third-person singular simple present errors, present participle erroring, simple past and past participle errored).
Output: yes
Question: Please tell the single word for "to completely root out a disease". 
Answer: Depending on the disease's cause (A virus, bacterium or other living creature): Exterminate might be a more fitting phrase.
Output: no
Question: I'm describing what an opiate addict looks like before recovery. Instead of saying "he looked like a vampire," I'd like to say something like "he looked [vampiric]." I actually just found out vampiric was a word, but I want something that sounds better (more colloquial/natural, I suppose) and covers a variety of traits (pale, emaciated, sickly, etc). Why I don't just use "vampiric": As @chepner commented: I think the idea is to find a word that isn't so "circular", and doesn't refer explicitly to vampires or require knowledge of vampires in context. If someone were to ask "What does a vampire look like?", then "It looks vampiric/vampirish" wouldn't be terribly helpful. I don't want to explicitly refer to drug addicts as vampires. I just want to capture those traits in the best way. 
Answer: There is always the tried and true "strung-out" or "cadaverous" or "corpselike" i like "he had the look of a worn and deflated pillowcase in need of a wash".
Output: no
Question: As an adverb, what is the difference between forward and forwards? 
Answer: The OED says this The present distinction in usage between forward and forwards is that the latter expresses a definite direction viewed in contrast with other directions. In some contexts either form may be used without perceptible difference of meaning; the following are examples in which only one of them can now be used: 'The ratchet-wheel can move only forwards'; 'the right side of the paper has the maker's name reading forwards'; 'if you move at all it must be forwards'; 'my companion has gone forward'; 'to bring a matter forward'; 'from this time forward'. The usage of earlier periods, and of modern dialects, varies greatly from that of mod. standard English. In U.S. forward is now generally used, to the exclusion of forwards, which was stigmatized by Webster (1832) as 'a corruption'.
Output: yes
Question: What is the mark of punctuation called that sometimes separates sections of a chapter with a glyph placed in the middle between the margins? It's hard to explain, but here's a picture. Does this have a name? (Yes, I know this is a asterisk. Sometimes it's three of them, sometimes it's a stylized graphic. I'm looking for the general name of the...methodology/practice (?) of doing this.) 
Answer: As explained by this page on Wikipedia, it's called a section break. I point you to the text of the annotation on the right side of the page where it pairs this term with the same kind of glyph you posted: Open pages of the book Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, showing an ornate section break on the lower left page created from asterisks. It is used to signal a pause for the reader and a transition in the narrative. And also the section on flourished section breaks: Space between paragraphs in a section break is sometimes accompanied by an asterism (either proper or manual * * *), a horizontal rule, fleurons, or other ornamental symbols. An ornamental symbol used as section break does not have a generally accepted name. Such a typographic device can be specifically referred to as dinkus, space break symbol, paragraph separator, paragraph divider, horizontal divider, thought break, or as an instance of filigree or flourish. Ornamental section breaks can be created using glyphs, rows of lozenges, dingbats, or other miscellaneous symbols. Fonts such as Webdings and Wingdings include many such glyphs. In HTML, horizontal rules can be generated using the hr tag, which generates a paragraph-level thematic break. For more ornate presentation, CSS can be used to replace the line with an image. As you've rightly acknowledged, the form a section break takes is entirely up to the person creating the publication.
Output: yes
Question: Background We have a motivational poster in our office that says: None of us is as smart as all of us. I think that it's grammatically incorrect, and here is my reasoning: All of the tigers have spots. All of us are here. None of us are dead yet. The three examples all sound correct when using the plural "are", rather than "is". Question Unfortunately, some of my coworkers disagree with me. They believe that the quote is correct when it uses the word "is". So my question is this: Is the motivational quote grammatically correct or should it say "all"? 
Answer: "None" is just short for "no one". None is not plural. It's not singular either, but it's even less plural. So "No one of us IS smarter..." I mean, I sure am not, but this is open and shut.
Output: no
Question: I am looking for a list of all English words that are their own antonyms. Off the top of my head, I can only think of "either", "fast", "to dust" and "to lease", but there must be dozens more. Can you provide a link to a comprehensive list, if such exists? Also, what are such words most commonly called? I like the term "Janus word" I once heard, but is that widely understood? Edited by popular demand to make it absolutely clear that this is not a community wiki poll. 
Answer: I think you're referring to Auto-antonyms. They are not the same word but a homograph (a word of the same spelling) that is also an antonym. I guess, Janus word is also acceptable. There was a list on Wikipedia (List of Auto-antonyms in English), since moved to Wiktionary's Appendix of English contranyms.
Output: yes
Question: I just realized that I've never needed to use 31th or 31st in my four years English study. So which one is correct, and what about other alternatives? 31th or 31st 101th or 101st 1001th or 1001st Can I also use that way everywhere in the same way (for example, ordinal numbers in math)? 
Answer: The numerals with endings are merely abbreviations for the words written out as text. When in doubt, write the word out. Thirty-first becomes 31st, eleventh 11th, forty-second 42nd, fiftieth 50th, and so on.
Output: yes
Question: I've read this and this. I know that the underlying question has been answered, my problem is of a different nature: I'm currently writing my master's thesis in CS and my professor thinks that the apostrophe possessive is only applicable to people. He claims to have spoken to a linguist from Cambridge who confirmed his opinion. Neither my professor nor I am a native speaker and the thesis is being written in Germany. Now, I know that he won't care if I just send him a couple of links to the answers here. So my question is: How do I convince my professor? Are there any "more scientific™" sources that I can point to? Examples of phrases: If each plant's humidity is displayed publicly [...] [...] shows an overview of the node's structure. Due to an issue in the network stack's IPv6 subsystem [...] 
Answer: As few people are addressing the '"more scientific™" sources' bit of the question, it should be pointed out that there are a number of English style guides out there, practically all of which should cover the topic of forming possessives with apostrophe-s (as it's a frequent issue even with native speakers). You should be able to find copies of at least one of the major ones in any decent University library. (At least at any decent University with English classes.) The Elements of Style by Strunk and White is the "gold standard" for many Americans, although there are many who disagree with many of the details. The Chicago Manual of Style is a well-used standard for (American) University usage. - The online version is unapologetic and direct on this topic: "The possessive of most singular nouns is formed by adding an apostrophe and an s", although it does go into more details. Fowler's modern English usage by Henry Fowler is also a well-regarded standard, particularly for British users. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage by Pam Peters has the benefit of the "authority" of Cambridge. Oxford, of course, has their own: The New Oxford Style Manual, though the title has varied with edition. If physical copies aren't something you're interested in, a number of organizations (particularly journalism houses) have their house style guides online. For example, the Economist makes no mention of the conjectured rule in its advice. The Guardian gives additional examples, and also completely omits the purported rule. Others can likely be found by searching, and other major organizations (like the Associate Press and the New York Times) have theirs as printed books. Many dictionaries also have usage notes in them. (In particular, I'll point out the comment from @ps2goat mentioning Oxford Dictionaries's online page.) Ultimately, though, it's exceedingly difficult to prove a negative. Even confronted with evidence that a large number of style guides and usage manuals for English have nothing approaching the purported rule, your professor might not be convinced that he is mistaken. If that is the case, your best choice is probably to reword things to avoid the issue.
Output: yes
Question: There is an Urban Dictionary entry saying Of Old English origin, shortening of "Good Speed," and contrary to popular belief has nothing to do with God. People would say this to others who were leaving on a long and perilous journey, wishing them success, but more importantly wishing for their return. Edited: Can it be used without invoking any nuance of religiosity ? Well guys, I did check the references and did find the explanations which ended up becoming the answer for the question. What I meant was to get an educated opinion on the usage of the term in modern times. How a question with so many votes gets put on hold is beyond me. 
Answer: "God speed you" is an example of a term with religious origins. Whether that makes it a "religious term" depends on what your definition of a "religious term" is. It's pretty archaic now. Perhaps surprisingly, it's not (originally) wishing "speed" to the person - it's from the old English word "spede" which means "success" (and from which "speed" is derived). So it's saying "May god give success to you". There are several phrases in common usage which have religious origins - often they now exist in a contracted form which isn't obviously recognisable as religious. For example, "goodbye", which is a contracted form of "God be with you". I think that most people wouldn't say that "goodbye" is a "religious term" (again, dependent on whatever that actually means), despite its religious origins. Because "god speed you" clearly contains the word "god", it's more likely to be described as religious, I would say.
Output: yes
Question: Is it possible to use the abbreviation "w.r.t." in academic papers? 
Answer: David Foster Wallace uses this abbreviation all the time. It's awesome. Depends on the tone you are going for; DFW uses it to evidence his desire for efficient language is on balance with his sprawling analysis of 'ineffable' artistic topics. I agree with it's use in a mathematician's paper, as efficiency is prized in that study. History, humanities, etc - it's a no go. Oh yeah, I'm a mere BA holder, so account for that in your advice acceptance criteria.
Output: no
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: I believe while and whilst are interchangeable, but whilst is more archaic and adds a nice flavoring to the sentence. That being said, "whilst" doesn't seem to come up so often in the middle of a sentence as you had it there, so I would use "while" in that case, even though both are grammatically correct. Whilst seems more apt to be put at the beginnings of sentences, e.g. Whilst going about my merry way I chanced upon a vagabond. Taking this serendipitous opportunity to satiate my bloodlust I decapitated him with a fork.
Output: yes
Question: If you, for example, have to add a person to an application whilst that person is on the phone, how do you politely ask for that person's gender if the voice and/or name has not proven decisive? To clarify why I posted this question on this site: I was looking for an answer within the context of the English language and usage. The given answers have proven that this question really isn't off-topic, other languages know different distinctions that are relevant to addressing this issue. 
Answer: I would simply ask, "Which box should I check?, M or F?, and keep in mind, this phone call is monitored"...a barely audible snicker should convey 'politeness', followed by , "seriously, we have a pool going on and I need to get this one right!".
Output: no
Question: There is a saying in Hindi in India "teri lal" which translates "yours is red" which means "Whatever the case may be you are right" as in "you are always right". It is a sarcastic way of telling (usually) a know-it-all person (but not meant truly) "you are right". Is there an equivalent version of this phrase in English? Example Rohan (the know-it-all): The moon is a sphere John: hmmm Rohan: The moon has its own light. John: OK "teri lal" (you are right sarcastically) 
Answer: My new favorite is You're not wrong Which implies they may be technically correct but are still incorrect in spirit. Or put another way, it implies they may not be wrong, but they aren't necessarily right either. I wouldn't say it's entirely sarcastic, but more of a funny quip. "you're not wrong" = "you're right", however phrasing it as "you're not wrong" usually that there's more to it -- either there's some missing nuance, or the speaker agrees grudgingly or doesn't like this truth or wishes it wasn't so, etc. Alice: Bob, you drink too much. Bob: You're not wrong. Something someone says when they dispute what you're saying but does so in an underhanded way. It's often followed by a "but".
Output: no
Question: I am looking for a generalized term for "the belief that there is a single or narrow range of correct interpretations of events or a circumscribed set of permitted actions in a particular situation as prescribed by an unquestionable authority." Fundamentalism fits to some degree, but has a religious connotation whereas people can hold the above belief without also believing in a deity or god. Also, people who identify as fundamentalist have a much different usage for the word. Any suggestions for a term that captures the belief without referring specificity to the religious? ETA: Very good suggestions. To clarify a bit more, what I am looking for is a word or short phrase that emphasizes a reliance on an unquestionable authority. Many words that have that connotation also seem to to be used to mean a steadfast belief. 
Answer: Dogmatism. Dogmatic people adhere to strict interpretation of accepted knowledge and teachings.
Output: no
Question: Possible Duplicate: "Toward" or "towards"? Which is the correct usage? "Onwards" or "Onward" ? For example: I would be free any time Tuesday onward. vs I would be free any time Tuesday onwards. Or is both correct/wrong? The spell checker in my browser says onwards is wrong but I've heard people using it. (p.s: Sorry if this question is redundant. I searched here but couldn't find a related question) 
Answer: Apparently, there is a slight difference, but only in British English: Note: In British English, 'onwards' is an adverb and 'onward' is an adjective. In American English and sometimes in formal British English, 'onward' may also be an adverb. So, depending on where you are, the difference maybe slight. However, they both mean the same thing practically, and most people will understand you if you use either anyways.
Output: yes
Question: I am looking for a word that incorporates all, or most, of the following (when referring to a sentence or a piece of technical literature): Highly academic Not useful (despite being technically correct) Overly verbose/eloquent Superfluous (to be honest, this seems to incorporate the rest, but I want to see if there is a better word here) Sample sentence (I hear it's required): There are many ____ white-paper definitions which only serve to dazzle the reader with the author's purported intelligence. 
Answer: The two most common, apart from Lux's pretentious, are going to be pedantic in the manner of a pedant, hence a. excessively concerned with minutiae. b. needlessly displaying academic learning. and pompous (originally) characterized by pomp and splendor. (now the primary sense) affectedly solemn and self-important. You'd use the first if the important aspect was how unimportant the information being shared was, the later if you wanted to emphasize the (undeserved) self-importance with which it was being shared. Since scholars have been writing for ages and this kind of behavior was, if anything, more common during the era when all scholars were monks, there are absolute scads of synonyms for variants and subvarieties. Some, like precious, could be considered gendered slurs; others, like bookish or nerdy, may not be taken as negative at all in our present culture. Two of my favorites are mumpsimus and sumpsimus.
Output: yes
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: Undulated , sinusoidal In Spanish 🇪🇸 is. Ondulado , sinusoide. In Paraguayan 🇵🇾 Spanish is a little weird! Is something like: full of ups and downs :"lleno de arribadas y bajeadas".
Output: no
Question: In my language there's a saying which literally translates to Don't burn your house to smoke out a rat! It advises us to use solutions that are appropriate to the magnitude of the problem. Eliye pedichu illam chudaruthu! - in Malayalam/Indian. What could be the English equivalent? 
Answer: This idiom carries the same idea, but it is expressed as a description of what happens when the magnitude of the 'solution' far exceeds the needs of the problem: Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. This idiom has the reverse idea: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Instead of advocating restraint when a portion is bad and the rest is valuable, it advocates care when a portion is valuable and the rest is unwanted.
Output: yes
Question: I am referring to someone who makes people 'buy' what he says and gets things done by them through nothing but clever speech something one can describe as crafty or beguiling, but not fraudulent. I pondered over con man and con artist for a while but those terms seem to hold a hint of crime, so those terms won't fit in. I am wondering if there is a more suitable phrase or word. 
Answer: If you seek a definition with some connection to cult of personality I'd suggest "Svengali" and "Mesmerist." A bit obscure but they also provide some panache. It's also fun to make people look things up.
Output: no
Question: What is the plural of syntax? Would it be syntacies? What rule would govern this kind of construction? 
Answer: As FumbleFingers has commented, the plural is syntaxes. That's probably because the normal plural -es is added to the root word, or it may possibly be because the Greek/Late Latin word from which syntax is derived is syntaxis and Greek words ending in -is are pluralised with -es. If we were to create a spoof plural for syntax it would be syntaces (words ending -x get -ces; the preceding vowel can change as in index/indices). But no-one uses that, or would know what it meant.
Output: yes
Question: Any situation, any time; this person has always something negative to say about it. It should be a noun or an adjective to describe a person who is a damp cloud walking over every sunshine situations at the cubicle, hoping to drench other people with his miserable comments. I considered "sourpuss" but would prefer something more important sounding, like "misogynist." 
Answer: In British English, "Naysayer" is common for someone who says that something is not possible, won't work, shouldn't be tried, etc.
Output: yes
Question: A simple question that has sparked some debate, and I couldn't find a concrete answer anywhere. There seems to be two camps: The word plethora indicates plural, so therefore it should be "There are a plethora"; and the other camp says that there is only one plethora (which contains multiple), so it should be "There is a plethora". I've seen many examples of both. Is there a consensus, or is it just one of those things that can go either way? 
Answer: There IS A whole bunch of reasons why you need to pay attention to encapsulation and collectives. There is a {ton of bananas} in the truck. There is a {whole ton of bananas} in the truck. There is a {bag of cloves} that I bought. There is a {box of cigarettes}. This is a {list of people} I am inviting. There is a {collection of artwork of various genres} in the warehouse. It is three days' {work} to finish painting the house. We have to look at he complex noun phrase as a whole. This is the super noun encapsulation. If there is only one collection, then there is only one collection. Regardless if there are many members in that singular collection. There is {singular complex noun}. There are {plural complex noun}. The following is a plural noun phrase encapsulated by a singular noun phrase: There IS my {having to deal with two hundred people who ARE attending the party} that IS giving me a headache. If we address the singular collection, we have to look at that collection as the singularised entity. If we wish to address the items (of the singular collective) in plural, we have to get rid of the collective encapsulation: There is a whole lot of people feeling depressed about the Patriots' failure to reach the Super Bowl. There is a lot of people feeling depressed about the Patriots' failure to reach the Super Bowl. There are lots of people feeling depressed about the Patriots' failure to reach the Super Bowl. There are many people feeling depressed about the Patriots' failure to reach the Super Bowl. Contractor: How many boxes of framing nails did you buy? Peon: I bought only one box. Angry Contractor: Do you mean to say there IS only ONE box of framing nails? Unrepentant Peon: There are plenty nails in a box Angry Contractor: There is also one whole load of studs to frame. There are another two loads coming in.
Output: no
Question: What am I doing when I search for something on the internet and the search provides for some other interesting stuff apart from what I was looking for and I end up opening an infinite number of browser tabs and browsing more and more it goes in an endless loop and the whole episode makes for after thought to ponder upon. PS: I lost the term I had found on Wikipedia and I cannot get it back. 
Answer: XKCD calls this a "tab explosion".
Output: no
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: How about ... tome raider? Or book keeper (not to be confused with bookkeeper).
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: Emails and email are both correct plurals, but each has its own context. It depends on whether or not you are using it as a countable or uncountable noun. Email You can use email as an uncountable noun, just like mail. For example, "I received lots of email today" or "John sends me too much stupid chain email". But, you cannot use email as a countable noun. For example, "I have five email" makes as much sense as "I have five mail". Emails You can use emails as a countable noun, just like letters. Originally, email was always uncountable, just like mail. But over time, largely due to the ubiquity of use, pieces of email or email messages (and similar phrases) were shortened, and simplified to just emails. For example: "I have five emails" or "Kevin sends me too many emails". (Contrast that last one with "Kevin sends me too much email".) Of course, you can still use emails in some contexts where email is also acceptable ("I received lots of emails today"), but it does have a slightly different meaning (compare to "I received lots of email messages today") because you are using a countable versus uncountable noun.
Output: yes
Question: In my language there's a saying which literally translates to Don't burn your house to smoke out a rat! It advises us to use solutions that are appropriate to the magnitude of the problem. Eliye pedichu illam chudaruthu! - in Malayalam/Indian. What could be the English equivalent? 
Answer: I once heard this: Don't use a cannon to kill a mosquito -- Confucius Although this is a translation and not originally an English idiom, I believe it is relatively well known in the English language. So it might also be an option.
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: access make session authentication auth SSO join & connect.
Output: no
Question: What would be the opposite of "sexy clothes", as in "clothes that hide sexual bits" ? Like for a woman, a top that would hide and make her breasts much less pronounced? Thanks in advance. 
Answer: maybe sensuous or proper clothing.
Output: no
Question: Possible Duplicate: When do I use "I" instead of "me?" A friend of mine asked me for advice about an e-mail he was writing. There was a sentence like this: I and my partners we are interested in investing in your product. I figured it was wrong, so I suggested: I and my partners are interested in investing in your product. This looks grammatical to me but sounds strange. Also, I have seen a lot of people writing this: Me and my partners we are interested in investing in your product. which I believe is not grammatical. So, which one of the options above is correct? Also, what would be a better choice of words? 
Answer: I was always taught that you should always put yourself last, which means the correct grammar here is none of your options, but instead it should be: Someone and I are interested in investing in your product. The options including "we" are not correct - that structure just doesn't make sense here.
Output: no
Question: I want to ask whether I can use the word "Fuck" in a formal context. Apparently, the word dates back to the early 16th century, so it shouldn't be considered slang (although, it is misused as slang for other reasons), but regardless of its vulgarity, could I use it in a formal context with its original definition? I imagine that people will be surprised, but when realizing in what context I am using it in, then it will be more understandable and acceptable to use it. Firstly, I do not even know the definition of the word due to its vastness in meaning, I always thought it was an exclamation-like word meaning nothing (for it to mean sexual activities is a slang definition, is that not correct?), but used purely for emphasis. What does it first and foremost mean in its original/accurate and/or formal definition? I also know of another definition of the word "Fuck," which is "I will fuck you" as in "I will defeat you" (in context of fighting or combat), is that a formal definition as well? I mainly ask for this, because I need to use the word in this context, specifically and especially. Also, side question, is it possible not to always make it a vulgar word? Thanks in advance. 
Answer: Let's just go ahead and say, no. It's questionable to use expletives here, so... unless you're writing a dissertation on the usage of the word in question, again: no. You shouldn't use any word you don't know the definition of, but here at Stack Exchange you may use them to talk about them. They are permissible when they are the context.
Output: yes
Question: Is there a specific rule, or set of rules, that can be followed to know when to use each word? I have noticed that not is usually used with a verb, but I think that there sometimes are exceptions although I can't think of one now. 
Answer: Not is a negative adverb; no is a negative quantifier; non- is a negative prefix. Since negation is so important, thousands of idioms use each of these, among other negatives. Consequently there are lots of exceptions to the general rules below. Non- is not a word, but a part of another word, usually a descriptive adjective: non-lethal, non-professional, non-native, non-technical, non-playing (The hyphen is optional.) Each of these mean "anything but ..." -- anything that doesn't kill you is non-lethal, anything that's not technical is non-technical, etc. This meaning contrasts with un- and in-, which refer to opposites instead of complements. No is half of the answer pair Yes/No, shading off vocally into Nah, Nuh-uh, and Uh-uh. But it can also quantify and negate any noun phrase: Some blade of grass ~ No blade of grass; One who saw it ~ No one who saw it. Not is the general negator for verb phrases, including predicate adjectives and nouns. In a verb phrase, not occurs immediately after the first auxiliary verb. If there is no auxiliary verb in the verb phrase, Do-Support supplies a form of do. Not is contracted whenever possible, with auxiliaries or subjects (especially pronouns): He's not interested ~ He isn't interested; She doesn't like it, but not *She not likes it. Any of these negatives (and many others) can negate a sentence, changing its truth value. It's easy to switch between them, too; the sentences below all mean the same thing: They allowed no phone calls. They didn't allow phone calls. No one allowed phone calls. Phone calls weren't allowed.
Output: yes
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: To the best of my knowledge, it is American custom to always put the final punctuation before a closing quotation mark, while British custom allows for the second usage that you illustrated above.
Output: no
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: You reconstruct, as in a reconstruction filter found in digital-to-analog converters: a reconstruction filter is used to construct a smooth analog signal from a digital input.
Output: yes
Question: Which one should I prefer? Is it worth it? or Does it worth it? Additionally, is the following form (without it) correct? Is it worth? 
Answer: Which one should I prefer? Is it worth it? or Does it worth it? "Is it worth it?" is correct. Additionally, is the following form (without it) correct? Is it worth? No, that's wrong, worth always needs another word, like "worth twenty pounds" or something.
Output: yes
Question: I am writing a poem for school. The verse with the word I need to change is this: 7 hours is too long In much too short a day You really don't care if you get an answer wrong Because you don't care a _____ about radioactive decay The only thing I can think of is the word shit, but that word is too offensive. I have tried looking for inoffensive alternatives at Real Life English's Not so Offensive Alternatives to Bad Words in English, and wordhippo but these alternatives do not sound great, especially in a poem. I also searched for don't care a ___ on the free dictionary by Farlex's idioms website and "don't care a fig" came up, alongside some other suggestions I tried from the autofill suggestions. Most worked literally, but I am looking for a more clever and poetic word or words that could be used in a way that relates to my poem. I am not just looking for any old answer. I do not want you to simply search for "don't care a" on google. I want suggestions that fit creatively into my poem. 
Answer: t all because you don't care at all about radioactive decay.
Output: no
Question: How to describe a person in a word who keeps mentioning about his own life story or about himself for every topic that is being conversed? Be it interesting or boring, he has the ability to pick out something that has happened to him or he himself creates a chance to talk about himself. Edit: The person is not selfish. He does care for others. I am just saying that the person relates everything to his life and talks about it, that too not even in a conceited way. This person is experienced enough to relate everything to things that has happened to him. 
Answer: A 'megalomaniac' person which it means a person who is obsessed with his/her own power.
Output: no
Question: What is the history of the word "troubleshoot"? At face value, it seems to be mean "aiming for trouble." Which must be short-hand for locating the source of the trouble by reproducing it under different circumstances. How did the term come to be? Who were the first "troubleshooters"? 
Answer: Why would anyone not see an original link to guns in the term? The logic would flow from issues in the old American West which was, for the most part, lawless. In those days, if a rancher or farmer had trouble with wild animals attacking his livelihood, his first recourse would be to shoot the offending animal. If claim jumpers were bothering (troubling) miners, they got shot. If some patron caused trouble in a bar, he got shot. Even the Indians of the day were prone to pull down telegraph wires that the White Man put up across their territory. Doing so made them troublemakers that required troubleshooters to balance the scales. This begs the answer that the term evolved to describe telegraph repair that would require firepower to back it up.
Output: no
Question: Is it more correct to say a computer program is erroring out, or it is erring out? Or are both statements grammatically incorrect? 
Answer: I would say that neither one is correct (from a programmer). You could say "... has an error and crashed ..." ("crashed" being the technical term for a program that suddenly stops or breaks down - except for airplane-related programs). But that's American usage - British programmers may differ.
Output: no
Question: What is an English adjective to describe the following skill: "able to learn new things quickly"? For example: Billy is very _________, as he learns new skills more quickly than an average person. 
Answer: How about tachymath? Or oxymath?
Output: no
Question: If there are an odd number of competitors at any stage of a single-elimination tournament, one player is excused from play and continues on as if he had defeated his (nonexistent) opponent. This is called "getting a by". Or "getting a bye". Who knows, maybe it's even "getting a buy", although I doubt it. My dictionary lists by as meaning "pass" in card-games, so that suggests that spelling. On the other hand, the image of the referee looking from the single player, to the empty and undefended far side of the field, and then back to the player, shrugging, and saying "Bye", is too strong to easily discard. Like other parts of the anatomy, everyone's got an opinion. I'm looking for a cite. 
Answer: According to the OED, bye is correct word. b. The position of an individual, who, in consequence of the numbers being odd, is left without a competitor after the rest have been drawn in pairs. (OED also points out a few other uses of bye in sports, but with different meanings.) And while it specifically doesn't clarify whether the competitor advances, the American Heritage Dictionary does point that out. The position of one who draws no opponent for a round in a tournament and so advances to the next round.
Output: no
Question: In conversation sometimes I'll say something like this: What's that do? which uses "s" as a contraction for "does". Is this a "real" contraction, or is it incorrect usage of a contraction? 
Answer: According to Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com, "what's" is short for: "what is" (What's the matter?) "what has" (What's happened to the car?) "what does" (What's that mean?) So it appears that "What's that do?" is grammatically correct. Merriam-Webster: what's Dictionary.com: what's.
Output: yes
Question: The only word that comes to my mind is tiptoe. However, this word implies that you are walking stealthily or cautiously. Is there a word that just means to walk slowly? Example sentence: Without knowing what I was doing, I _ toward her. 
Answer: Sorry for the short answer all - I'm more used to Stack Overflow where short answers are treated like royalty :D Better response: I still like meander as it has a whimsical connotation - which the provided example seems to be wanting. It was pointed out that prance has an energy to it that makes it incompatible but shuffled is still a decent option, though a bit defeated sounding for OP's example... Stepped is still workable - just a bit dull. I would say of my previous suggestions, meander holds up the best.
Output: no
Question: I'm having a serious argument with a friend on the status of the word "suck" when I used it about him by saying "You suck!" because he missed a train. We are both non-native English speakers. He claimed that I used it as a foul or slang term. I vehemently disagreed with him about it. I told him that the word "suck" can be used to describe something inefficient or not good enough as well like it is used in the example "Samsung mobile sucks". Am I right to describe the use of the word "suck" in such context? 
Answer: Yes, as used in the OP, "sucks" is always slang. SUCKS transitive verb; slang: a. To be highly unpleasant or disagreeable: This job sucks. b. To be of poor or inferior quality: The acting in that movie sucked. c. To be inept: I suck at math. see TFD The fixed-phrase "this/that SUCKS dick/cock" gained currency exclusively among male American youth in the early 1970's as a derogatory slang expression of general contempt for some object, activity, or person. The phrase was, as intended, unapologetically misogynistic and homophobic. In the seventies, female youth never employed this idiom. No surprise there, though this is no longer the case. By the late seventies, probably in order to evade adult censure (and since youth knew precisely what was intended), the last word of the phrase was dropped. If the term is currently considered to be non-vulgar it is most likely due to this partial sanitization and because contemporary youth are ignorant of the original misogynistic and homophobic intent. see, ELU; UE;.
Output: no
Question: What does "I'm game" mean and what is its correct usage? 
Answer: I'm game means that I am up for the challenge, but arguably more commonly, I agree... Q: Fancy going for a drink? A: Sure, I'm game... or Q: I was thinking of going shopping. Do you want to come? A: Yes, I'm game... As for correct usage, as with most idioms, use it as you will... there is no correct usage as such.
Output: yes