niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Question: I have found a similar topic addressing the use of "comprise" but my question is not exactly in line with that one. I did ask this question there to keep the topic related to the use of "comprise" but it was removed since I did not follow protocol. So my apologies if this seems like a duplicate entry. When does one use "comprises of" and when "comprise"? Are they interchangeable? For example: "My name comprises 5 letters" "My name comprises of 5 letters" Which is correct? Or are they both acceptable? 
Answer: A quick look in a decent online dictionary is advisable: comprise Usage: The use of of after comprise should be avoided: the library comprises (not comprises of) 500 000 books and manuscripts Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged Collins. I don't think US usage is any different. Another quote, from the internet (repunctuated): Never use 'comprise of' or 'comprises of' - but 'comprised of' is allowed. This is a passive (or arguably adjectival) usage involving comprised which some consider to be ungrammatical.
Output: yes
Question: Once when I was having a hard time a guy said to me, "I'm sorry you're having a hard time, I'll pray for you," in a way that made it clear that he was glad I was having a hard time because it gave him the opportunity to pray for me and feel good about himself. I am interested in this phenomenon but also the much more general (probably universal) phenomenon of human beings finding justification for things they want to do, often by lying to themselves about the utility of the behavior to other people. The best single word I can think of for this is contrived, but it is not close to precise. Similarly, dissembling, insincere, and so on don't really cut it. I also looked at this list of cognitive biases but was unable to find one that expressed this idea. Is there a single word for this? If not, a short phrase? 
Answer: I am not sure if you are stuck to the notion of altruism, but in the context of making a show of being nice to others to make themselves feel good, you could use sanctimonious. Sanctimonious is a twist on the words sanctity and sacred, which mean holy or religious. A sanctimonious person might think he's holy, but their attitude comes across more like "holier-than-thou." Though sanctimonious people might try to act like saints, their actions are far from pure or holy, which just makes them sound like hypocrites. Vocabulary.com.
Output: yes
Question: Ok, if I say "this car is too expensive" or "this car is very expensive", then I can not express the connotation of "expensive". However, if I say "this car is damn expensive" then I better convey the connotation of "expensive". So my question is: What is the English idiom about "expensive" that expresses the idea that "It is so expensive that you feel like you got ripped-off and/or overcharged and/or unmeaningfully expensive"? For example, "damn expensive" could be ok but is there any other term? 
Answer: exorbitant is also used for extremely unreasonable prices. An example of using it, quoting the Oxford dictionary: some hotels charge exorbitant rates for phone calls.
Output: yes
Question: So I have seen usages of "Your will be done" in the context when some higher authority is issuing orders but shouldn't it be "Your will will be done"? it makes more semantic sense than the former. 
Answer: Will and will are two different, unrelated words. The fact the spelling is the same has no relevance to grammar or semantics.
Output: no
Question: First of all, I am not a native English speaker and not very good in English too. I had a technical problem in my software project and thus took help of somebody. She helped me to find the right way to resolve my issue. Can I say her, "You are a path shower" to show my appreciation to her ? UPDATE: She always guides me when I am in trouble. Considering this, what more can I say her. 
Answer: Most of these answer are so very flowery! I would simply go with "thanks for your guidance". It's appropriate for both formal and informal settings (unlike several of the other answers...), and straightforward. You could even flash it up: "thanks for your consistent, excellent guidance on this project" and keep it not too "puppy on the heels".
Output: no
Question: I am developing some software where users are assigned tasks. They will see a date and time for when they were assigned to the task, but if they were later removed from the task, there will be a date and time for that also. 01/02/14 - Assigned 03/02/14 - Unassigned I'm pretty sure unassigned isn't correct. I suppose the task itself could be in a state of being unassigned, but the user wasn't "unassigned" from it. Notes: I don't want to use the word "removed", as I don't think it conveys the correct meaning and also sounds too harsh. I would like to avoid using a word your average person would never have heard of, as this isn't very user-friendly from a software point of view. 
Answer: "revoked", "withdrawn", "retracted", or simply "reassigned".
Output: yes
Question: I've heard people say "be king" (as in "I can't wait to be king") in movies and TV. Why don't they say "be a king"? Which is correct? 
Answer: Since "a king" uses an indefinite article, it suggests that he may become any one of a number of kings. In most cases where a person may become king, there is only one king in the political structure he inhabits. For instance, if he is in the line of succession for the English throne, he probably cannot become king of France or Denmark without marrying into that royal family. The equivalent phrase to "I can't wait to be king" would use a definite article - it could be rephrased as "I can't wait to be the king", since there is only one kingship he is eligible to accede to.
Output: yes
Question: It is quite easy to separate preferences, and configuration, but options, and settings have much similar meaning; So similar,in fact, that I can't pick one over another. Could you please describe the meaning of these two words? What is it common between them, and what is it different? I have removed "software UI" from the title, as it seems to lead answers off topic. I'm genuinely interested in subtle difference in meaning of named words. 
Answer: Options refers to things you may choose;you may select one over another. So, the options you chose are "preferences". Settings mostly implies the "context" that the options you chose are in and is more like configuration. E.g; Color is "setting"; red, green, blue e.t.c are options. Font is "setting"; Arial, Times New roman are options. Settings: color, font.
Output: yes
Question: I recently had somebody tell me that a mutual friend of ours who is genderqueer prefers that people refer to him/her using the gender-indefinite pronoun they. In some cases, this almost seems okay: Kris left their umbrella at our house. On the other hand, if Kris is sitting right next to you, it feels very odd to say They (meaning just Kris) would like more cake. Or even odder, Kris would like some more cake, can you please pass it to they/them?" Are these usages grammatically correct? Are they in the process of becoming grammatically correct? Are there more correct alternatives? 
Answer: I think the reason for your friend's preference is that using either the male or female pronouns implicitly pigeon-holes the person in question as either one or the other. However, all of the examples you give seem to me to be forced, and to shout out loud "Hey, look at how sensitive I'm being! I'm not calling Kris either male or female!" There are sensible alternatives to all of these examples that do not break any grammatical rules. "Kris left their umbrella at our house" : Kris left an umbrella at our house (yes, it could technically then be somebody else's umbrella that was left behind, but would you really know?) "They [Kris] would like more cake." : Kris would like some more cake. "Kris would like some more cake, can you please pass it to they?" : Could you please pass the cake? Kris would like some more. While my dictionary (Chambers 1990) does have a secondary definition of "they" as "he or she", it also says that this usage is "with pl. verb", as in "there are lots of people; they are happy". "They is" would not be correct.
Output: yes
Question: Possible Duplicate: Types of things vs. types of thing When using the phrase "types of" or "kinds of," it often seems appropriate to follow with a singular noun (e.g., types of rock), but at other times a plural noun sounds better (e.g., types of sentences). Is there some kind of rule about this? 
Answer: I think your essential concern is about countable vs. uncountable nouns. Countable nouns can be singular or plural; uncountable nouns are singular. Some words can be both, in different meanings. Take a look at this example discussing countable and uncountable nouns: The coffees I prefer are Arabica and Brazilian. (Here coffees refers to different types of coffee) You could write, "The types of coffee I prefer are Arabica and Brazilian." So with your example: The rocks I like are basalt and granite. [Rocks are countable] The types of rock I like are basalt and granite. [Rock is uncountable] When rock is taking on the uncountable meaning, it's not one rock - it's the idea of rock, the general concept. The only senses in which this is familiar to me are the "solid mineral" one and rock as in "rock music," where you might say, "The types of rock I like are grunge and punk." Contrast the other part of your example: The sentences I like are about geology. [Sentences are countable] The types of sentences I like are about geology. [Sentences are still countable] Sentences don't have an uncountable meaning: *The types of sentence I like are about geology. [Ungrammatical for most speakers, I think].
Output: no
Question: Opening doors, offering to pay the tab, helping with a coat or a light of the smoke: we may describe these acts of a man to be gentlemanly. In a word, how may we describe these acts of any person? 
Answer: I'd go with courteous, the etymology of which also hints at a closer fit to gentlemanly than, say, decorous, polite, or respectful.
Output: yes
Question: I often read the expression "would of" used instead of "would have". Each time I read it I get annoyed so I googled it and found out -as I expected- that it is an incorrect way to say "would have". Now, there are a lot of brilliant slang words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It's so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it is pointless, why did they come up with this expression? Edit: I don't think my question is a duplicate as I didn't ask how can somebody use it (since I know it's incorrect and I know that I can use it with commas giving it a different meaning) but I asked why and how people came up with this expression. 
Answer: Great question. I also get annoyed when I see this phrase, especially from people who should know better. At one of my old jobs year ago, I worked with an account manager who actually used that phrase in an e-mail, saying something like "I should of known better". Yes, an account manager "should of" had a better education to know proper grammar... or at least know that's not a phrase used by professionals. Even though the phrase might be pronounced and heard as "should of" (or "would of" or "could of"), there's no such phrase in written English. No school that I've heard of teaches this phrase and basic rules of grammar "abbreviate the word have as 've". And writing "should of" takes just as many characters to write as "should've", so it's not like it's text-speak. In my opinion, it's people being stupid, ignorant, or trying to be funny/ hip/ trendy by using the wrong phrase. Then other people see it and want to be in on the joke, so they use it also.
Output: no
Question: I believe there is a term for a person who uses 'expert sounding' terminology and exudes confidence, even when their actual abilities are significantly short of their 'presentation'. Using 'wine' a subject.... if a person described a taste as: Magnificent bouquet, the esters resonate with hints of mulberry and asparagus. This must be an oak-matured red from Bordeaux. Perhaps.... 2003 vintage, that was a year when unusual rainfall produced an outstanding crop that had the same rich tannins. A person describing the wine like that has apparent confidence, apparent technical expertise, and so on. Yet, if he was a fraud, and knew nothing about wines, and the "wine" was really vinegar.... what would you call that person? Additionally, this would not be a one-off thing. This would be a person who consistently "bamboozles" people, and only when you dig below the posturing, or put them in the company of a 'real' expert, do you see the reality. A fraud, a cheat, an imposter. Those would be true, but I'm sure there's a word which also covers the confidence, charisma, and presentation style too. I just can't think of it. 
Answer: We can call this person a poseur or poser. The Wikipedia page provides a fairly good explanation of the term, its use, and its etymology. Pronouncing it as "poser" sounds hip in a surferish subculture way, while pronouncing it as "poseur" (Frenching it up, so to speak) can sound, ironically enough, affected. But appropriate when someone's showing false pedantry (not a single word, but a useful and relevant phrase), especially about French wine.
Output: no
Question: What do you call someone who knows all the gossip and stories about people in his neighborhood or surroundings, someone who's always informed. It doesn't have to be expressed in a word. Could be a sentence (e.g. she knows the ins and outs), but I'm looking for a better way to express it. 
Answer: I recall hearing (NPR) about American words borrowed from the native language of slaves such as from African is the word hepacat (I think that I have spelled it correctly) "someone who is knowledgable about what is going on" from which is derived hepcat which leads to hipcat finally hip.
Output: no
Question: Possible Duplicate: Is it correct to use "punctuation outside of the quotations", or "inside?" I've heard that you should always place ending punctuation inside of quotes, no matter what. Are there any cases where it is appropriate for a sentence to end with ".? 
Answer: Punctuation inside quotes is a rule that was invented by American publishers and is not necessarily followed elsewhere. The original reason had to do with typesetting mechanics and is obsolete. Also, if you're preparing technical texts such as about computer programming, this can result in technically incorrect material. In practice, you are at the mercy of whoever is editing or grading your material. But to answer your question, it can certainly be "acceptable" in many parts.
Output: yes
Question: Is penultimate commonly used in English, or are its variations (such as second to last) more common? I need to use it in conjunction with the expressions First Payment Date and Last Payment Date to name variables while programming. In my mother language (Portuguese) Penultimate Payment Date would be fine, but it feels strange in English. (I know feels strange is not very helpful, but I'd like to know how to convey the meaning in the most natural way.) 
Answer: Penultimate is a regular word in the normal register in Portuguese or Spanish: penultimo. In English, however, it becomes a much more educated word belonging to a much more learned, or elevated, register. Therefore to translate to English and keep to the same register, you must select the more pedestrian next-to-last. (Then again, if we were linguists talking about syllable stress, we would not be afraid to use this word. It just isn't a blue-collar world; it's a professional one.) It's like asking whether you can translate PT/ES cotidiano to EN quotidian. Yes, you can, but you shouldn't, because you've crossed register boundaries, which means it doesn't sound equivalent even thought it means the same thing. Not always, but in general, when you find a word in English that's a close cognate with something from Romance, the register has switched, and you should look for a more Anglo-Saxon word if you want to keep to the same style. Because of the Norman occupation, Modern English often has pairs of words in different and contrasting registers, where a more purely Romance or purely Germanic language than English now is would have only one. This gives English more flexibility and nuance by having recourse to a pair of terms instead of having one alone. But it is a perilous thing for non-native speakers, who must keep an eye out for a probably shift in register. Does that make sense?.
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 were several answers way, way off-base. Disengage was not bad but does not carry the same implications. Pigeonhole, defer, put off, undo also work. Undo everything is two words. Undo would do. (grin).
Output: no
Question: Most grammar checkers are capable of detecting the the misuse of "your" and "you're"; providing the necessary correction. I'm curious though, is there any sentence that can be constructed where replacing "your" with "you're" keeps the sentence grammatically correct, but changes the meaning? If this is not possible, what grammar rules are in place that prevents these edge cases from occurring? 
Answer: Grammar is the difference between: knowing your shit and knowing you're shit Both are correct, but obviously have very different meanings.
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: Consider: less of the two - a smaller amount of both things under consideration: "I would prefer to see less of the two in the future." lesser of the two - the thing that is smaller in quantity, amount, stature, etc. than the other: "I'll take the lesser of the two and you can have the other one." One way to look at it, then, is that less refers to an amount of something that need not be compared to anything else, whereas lesser refers to the thing itself in comparison to something else (which need not be explicitly named).
Output: no
Question: What is the idiom for a situation that "If people-in-authority don't follow their own set rules, then what can one expect from rest of us" in similar examples given below in different settings: When HR themselves are tardy, undisciplined then what can you expect from the employees (punctuality and discipline)? When traffic police themselves are offending (driving without belts, smoking while driving) what can you expect from the vehicle driving community in the city? When parents themselves are undisciplined (smoking in front of children), what can you expect from the children themselves? When the management is insincere, what can you expect from their staff? 
Answer: While not an exact fit (because it doesn't necessarily involve figures of authority), what about the following: If they don't practice what they preach why should we? from def: To do the things that you advise other people to do: He's such a hypocrite! He never practises what he preaches. (Cambridge) Also, while not an idiom, hypocrite fits as well.
Output: yes
Question: Is there a noun or adjective for the following or similar: a pleading before a judge for clemency a prayer before God begging for mercy Is there a better word than "begging", "pleading", "petitioning", etc.? 
Answer: Judge or God, clemency or mercy.. Supplication, a noun, can logically be applied to any situation in which you plead to someone in power for help or a favor. Supplication: comes from the Latin verb supplicare, which means "to plead humbly." (etymonline.com) Supplication (also known as petitioning) is a form of prayer, wherein one party humbly or earnestly asks another party to provide something, either for the party who is doing the supplicating (e.g., "Please spare my life.") or on behalf of someone else (e.g., "Please spare my child's life."). (wiki).
Output: yes
Question: Consider this quote from Mark Twain: "Familiarity breeds contempt - and children." Does it mean having children is a bad thing? Could you explain what the children imply here? 
Answer: I think you are confused because you see familiarity as containing the root word "family"."Word Choice: Familiar vs. Familial" It explains that "Familiar" means "Known from Experience", whereas "Familial" is "Relating to Family", as mother, father, brother, sister, cousins, aunt, uncle, etc. "Familiarity breeds contempt" applies to the circumstance that becoming too emotionally close (familiar) to someone can breed bad feelings for each other. As for the Mark Twain quote, "Familiarity breeds contempt - and children." is a play on words, a joke; treating "familiarity", as if it was referring to family, and the word 'breed' as 'breeding children', rather than feelings. It could be seen as a friendly dig on children, or it could be seen as just a funny play on words.
Output: no
Question: Possible Duplicate: "Did it close" vs "Has it closed"? As a English non-native speaker it is difficult for me to understand when I must use present perfect or past simple because in my official language there isn't the present perfect tense. I know that present perfect is related to something that happened in the past but its result is important now. But for instance: The message has been sent. The message was sent. Please help me point me out any examples/contexts where I should use 1. instead of 2. 
Answer: 1 means that the action happened just now. You would typically see it in your e-mail program just after you send an e-mail. Your program might give you this message to let you know that the message you just sent has indeed been sent. 2 refers to something that happened at some time in the past. It could have been an hour ago, a day ago, or even a century ago! But it wasn't just now.
Output: yes
Question: In the movie Easy A, the character Todd said "See you at salt mines" to Olive when they met at Melody's party. What does salt mines mean? Does it really mean "a mine for salt"? 
Answer: Salt mines are, of course, just mines for salt, but in classical times, they were staffed by slaves, typically POWs, and the work was so arduous and the environment so dangerous, that being sent to the salt mines was considered a death sentence. To describe any job as a "salt mine" is a hyperbolic way of saying the work is unpleasant, arduous, or repetitive. edit reading John's reference, I realized I was confusing salt mines with classical tin mines (also very unpleasant). Salt mines are more recent and their staff, not necessarily POWs.
Output: yes
Question: I believe there is a term for a person who uses 'expert sounding' terminology and exudes confidence, even when their actual abilities are significantly short of their 'presentation'. Using 'wine' a subject.... if a person described a taste as: Magnificent bouquet, the esters resonate with hints of mulberry and asparagus. This must be an oak-matured red from Bordeaux. Perhaps.... 2003 vintage, that was a year when unusual rainfall produced an outstanding crop that had the same rich tannins. A person describing the wine like that has apparent confidence, apparent technical expertise, and so on. Yet, if he was a fraud, and knew nothing about wines, and the "wine" was really vinegar.... what would you call that person? Additionally, this would not be a one-off thing. This would be a person who consistently "bamboozles" people, and only when you dig below the posturing, or put them in the company of a 'real' expert, do you see the reality. A fraud, a cheat, an imposter. Those would be true, but I'm sure there's a word which also covers the confidence, charisma, and presentation style too. I just can't think of it. 
Answer: My first thought for this would be charlatan:- A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud. [American Heritage Dictionary via The Free Dictionary] Another possibility would be mountebank:- a boastful unscrupulous pretender [Merriam-Webster].
Output: yes
Question: I was writing something along "... I could only read upto page 34" when my spell-check app Grammarly complained that I should rather use "up to". So, what's the difference between the two and is there really any difference? Or is it that the condensation "upto" is not technically allowed? 
Answer: Upto is a misspelling of up to. -- Wiktionary Use up to with a space between the two words. Also, as Yosef Baskin says: You can use the following self-test: Does the single word say something different from the two words? If not, stay with two words. By contrast, into and onto do mean things other than in to and on to, so they work as single words.
Output: yes
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: OED Modest (of a woman) dressing or behaving so as to avoid impropriety or indecency, especially to avoid attracting sexual attention. 'the modest women wear long-sleeved dresses and all but cover their faces' I think modest clothing conveys the meaning you're looking for.
Output: yes
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: Go down a rabbit hole To enter into a situation or begin a process or journey that is particularly strange, problematic, difficult, complex, or chaotic, especially one that becomes increasingly so as it develops or unfolds. "Owning your own business is a huge responsibility that not everyone is prepared for. Are you sure you're ready to go down the rabbit hole?" "I've stayed away from drugs and alcohol since coming to college. I have an addictive personality, so I decided to just avoid going down that rabbit hole altogether." "Overhauling the current tax legislation is a rabbit hole I don't think this administration should go down at this point." It's probably a reference to Alice's Adventures In Wonderland, (often referred to as Alice In Wonderland) which starts off with the titular heroine following a strange looking rabbit down a hole, after which all sorts of strange events unfold.
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: you snooze, you lose informal if you do not pay attention and do something quickly, someone else will do it instead of you: Cambridge Dictionary If you wait too long to do something, that opportunity might become unavailable. Farlex Dictionary of Idioms John: Yahoo! $100! (Anderson takes the money) John: Hey, I saw it first! Anderson: You snooze, you lose.
Output: yes
Question: How can you explain that this double negation is not a double negation? Is there a rule in English about this kind of sentence? PS / Do I have to mention Pink Floyd Copyright ? :-) Edit : Since there are a lot of Pink Floyd related explanation, I'll bring a Freddy Mercury one : "I don't have time for no monkey business", which I also understand as "I don't have time for monkey business". Am I right ? 
Answer: Doubled negatives are often used casually in certain dialects to indicate negative concord, an intensification of negation rather than an inversion of it. This typically happens when both words involved are simple negatives, and is most common with no standing in for a, an, or any alongside don't or ain't. So you can safely assume that He isn't not going to the concert. is double negation proper, because it has emphasis, as is She wasn't unimpressed. because this is litotes, whereas I ain't no hillbilly. is negative concord, because it's obviously casual, and uses ain't no in place of am no or am not a. (It's also a patent lie, but that's beside the point.).
Output: yes
Question: I recently had somebody tell me that a mutual friend of ours who is genderqueer prefers that people refer to him/her using the gender-indefinite pronoun they. In some cases, this almost seems okay: Kris left their umbrella at our house. On the other hand, if Kris is sitting right next to you, it feels very odd to say They (meaning just Kris) would like more cake. Or even odder, Kris would like some more cake, can you please pass it to they/them?" Are these usages grammatically correct? Are they in the process of becoming grammatically correct? Are there more correct alternatives? 
Answer: My main gripe is the gratuitous change of number that sometimes happens when someone is trying to avoid gender-specific pronouns. Example: [old way] "Everybody has at least three dollars in his wallet." Formerly, when the gender of the antecedent was not specified the pronoun was forced to masculine. [misguided attempt at gender neutrality] "Everybody has at least three dollars in their wallet." Everybody is singular in number, which is why we do not say, "Everybody are going to the movies." [how I would do it] "Everybody has at least three dollars in its wallet." Gender is forced to neuter using an already-existing pronoun, and singular number is preserved. The following may prove useful to the OP.
Output: no
Question: I've heard people say "be king" (as in "I can't wait to be king") in movies and TV. Why don't they say "be a king"? Which is correct? 
Answer: Oddly enough, I think "to be king", "to be a king" and "to be the king" are all different. If you say "to be a king", like recognizer says, it would imply one of any number of kings, whereas if you say "to be the king", it would imply one specific king of one specific kingdom. On the other hand, if you say "to be king", it's like you're saying "to have the attributes and/or capabilities that come with being (a/the) king", whichever those are. In other words, one can be "a king" or "the king" and still not "be king", if such states do not apportion to their monarchs the features of "being king". And, one can "be king" even without being "a king" or "the king", if such features are made available in some other way, unlikely as that may be. Note that I'm not talking about metaphorical meanings of "king", here (like, say, the "king of rock'n'roll"), but of literal meanings, such as monarch or ruler.
Output: no
Question: Should I write it like this? Or perhaps like this? Should I write it like this? or perhaps like this? What about after an exclamation mark or semicolon? 
Answer: The word after a question mark (or exclamation point) is capitalized if it starts a new sentence. If the next word does not start a new sentence, because the question mark is part of a quotation, a title, an interruption, etc., then it is not capitalized. Usually such things are set off with quotes, dashes, parentheses, or italics; but not always. Your option #2 is a single interrogative sentence with two parts and a question mark at the end of each part. This is rare today, but it was apparently a lot more common historically, when sentences were longer. It is not at all hard to find examples with the word or: Do you not know what beauty is? or do you not know whether you think him handsome? (1814) Who lives in a more elegant style? or receives more illustrious visitors? (1815) Should he anticipate the savages? or should he lie still, and abide their assault? (1822) Could you have done as much? you or any other man? or any other woman that ever breathed? (1833) Does the science of medicine prevent death? or the institution of government prevent crime? (1847) "Where are we scheduled to walk? or are we to have something to say about it ourselves?" (1896) These examples are all from the Corpus of Historical American English, which only goes back to 1810. There are no doubt plenty of examples in later decades I stopped looking but this way of writing questions has all but disappeared. I rather like it, but to some people it's just wrong, and to others it might seem literary or pretentious. Update: Consecutive sentences in the prologue of Shakespeare's Henry V contain a non-final question mark and a non-final exclamation point. [...] But pardon, and gentles all, The flat unraised spirits that have dared On this unworthy scaffold to bring forth So great an object: can this cockpit hold The vasty fields of France? or may we cram Within this wooden O the very casques That did affright the air at Agincourt? O, pardon! since a crooked figure may Attest in little place a million; And let us, ciphers to this great accompt, On your imaginary forces work.
Output: no
Question: I overheard my manager asking "What are you up to?" What does that idiom mean? Is it an informal/negative way of asking?? 
Answer: "What are you up to?" means "What have you been doing lately?". If you add an adverb to the end of the phrase, for instance, "What are you up to tonight?" or "What are you up to this summer?" it can be interpreted as "What are you planning to do tonight?" or "What are you planning to do this summer?".
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: Semantically, none is neither singular nor plural. It's less than one and much less than many. So its subject agreement is entirely arbitrary. Plus, negatives are noted for their funny grammar. Positive quantifiers are either singular in verb agreement, like each and every, or plural, like all. None can be either, depending on context. Every boy is playing today. Every one of the boys is playing today. Each boy is playing today. Each of the boys is playing today. All of the boys are playing today. None of them are playing today. None of them is armed. If it quantifies a plural noun phrase, as in none of us, then it's equivalent to the negation of a universal quantifier in many cases. For instance, None of us are going to the party. is equivalent to All of us are not going to the party. which is ambiguous; that's one reason not to say it this way. instead of All of us are staying away from the party. which is unequivocally plural. As for the motivational slogan None of us is as smart as all of us (note, no full stop) It's intended to make you think, and it seems to have succeeded. If you like, you can take it as short for None of us is as smart as all of us together are. which is meant to contrast individual intelligence with groupthink, and therefore is unequivocally singular. tl;dr It'd be grammatical with are, but it'd also be a less efficient slogan.
Output: yes
Question: Duplicate: What day is next Tuesday? I have always considered next Friday to be not this coming Friday, but the one after. This Friday is the Friday at the end of this week. I have a Canadian friend, however, who enforces the more literal meaning of next Friday the Friday that comes next. Is there a correct meaning for next Friday, or does this entirely depend on cultural differences? 
Answer: People generally understand next Friday as the Friday after this, that is, if you are on a Thursday, and someone tells you to meet him next Friday, it doesn't mean the next day, but rather, Friday week, the Friday after. Some pedantics will believe and argue that it is, as you say, the Friday that comes next. That is valid reasoning. However, if you want to be understood by the majority, "next Friday" will mean Friday next week. So, in order to mean the Friday that actually comes next, you would say this Friday, but next Friday is generally understood by more people to mean the Friday after this.
Output: yes
Question: I saw an article today that prompted a thought. I only took a year of Latin in high school, so I want to run this by some other people. The article referenced a female senator so-and-so. However, I think that senator, with the -or ending is in the nominative, third declension, which is not gender neutral. So, when referring to a female subject, should senatrix be used instead? Also, does anyone know if there is a reason why the male form is used exclusively? I think females were restricted from the Roman senate perhaps the term just never made sense etymologically because of this? 
Answer: The same issue comes up in the word *senile,*and although anile is an English word, it is seldom used. As for the suffix trix, it clings to life in geometry, where a parabola is defined as the locus of points equidistant from a point p and a line L called the directrix. Perhaps one could argue that "directrix" is just a Latin word. I don't think so.
Output: no
Question: There is the verb quicken to make something quick or faster, but Merriam-Webster doesn't list slowen. What is the verb to make something slow (as in 'reduce in speed', not 'something that is slow')? 
Answer: There is also decelerate, which is the opposite of accelerate. From M-W verb to move slower : to lose speed.
Output: no
Question: Is there a name for these kind of doubled words? For example: hanky-panky flim-flam hoity-toity boo-hoo zig-zag Note that some rhyme and others do not. 
Answer: hanky-panky is an example of rhyming reduplication zig-zag is an example of ablaut reduplication.
Output: no
Question: How can you explain that this double negation is not a double negation? Is there a rule in English about this kind of sentence? PS / Do I have to mention Pink Floyd Copyright ? :-) Edit : Since there are a lot of Pink Floyd related explanation, I'll bring a Freddy Mercury one : "I don't have time for no monkey business", which I also understand as "I don't have time for monkey business". Am I right ? 
Answer: You could assume that commas have been left out: "We do, not need, no education" in which case the implication would me that although education is needed, they do not 'do' it (incorrect, but could be appropriate as slang). Alternatively: "We do not [have], need no, education" Where the repition is used as emphasis: "we do not [have] education, and we need no education" Both of these are a bit of a stretch, and while possible, I doubt they are what Pink Floyd intended.
Output: no
Question: What's the difference between transparent and translucent? I am trying to describe this record pressing. 
Answer: These are both Latin words, and the etymologies help here. trans simply means through luceo simply means to shine So translucent means 'shining through' -- i.e, light passes through, though nothing is said about an image. pareo means to look, seem or appear; to think (of); to sound (like) So transparent clearly refers to identifiable images, most likely visual (hence implying light), but also any sensory percept involving a mental image, as in a transparent lie. Since transparent usually entails light passing through a substance, translucent has become specialized in its sense to entail light passing, but no image.
Output: yes
Question: Does "egoistic" and "egotistic" mean the same thing? 
Answer: An "egotist" thinks that the world revolves around him/her. An "egoist" is a petty soul, disregarding of the rights and needs of others. It is synonymous with "selfish person".
Output: no
Question: I am looking for the term describing when your hair grows kind of in a circular direction (defined by the direction of your hair root). Many people have something like this on the back of their heads or even on their foreheads. I found the term hair crown on dict.cc but I feel like this is either not the correct term for it or it is not very widely used. There is a German article on human hair including a section about these things but I could not find the English equivalent. In German, these are called Haarwirbel meaning something like hair whirl. 
Answer: When I was younger, I learned that my guinea pig's splayed hair growth were due to "multiple hair crowns." I looked it up today on Wikipedia and the term rosettes is used: The Abyssinian is set apart from other guinea pigs by its unique coat. The hair of an Abyssinian is approximately an inch and a half long and is marked with swirls of hair known as rosettes.
Output: no
Question: Is the word "dude" becoming gender neutral? I don't think so, however, has modern usage changed? Are there some recent examples of "dude" being used to refer to a woman or group of women? 
Answer: Personally I would feel quite creeped out if a male individual would address me with dude and I have not seen the word dude used as a gender neutral term. If a female individual would address me with dude I think she could get away with it, but it's not something I have actually seen. A (female) friend of mine does use the terms dudette dudette (plural dudettes) (slang, often humorous) Term of address for a woman. (slang, often humorous) A cool woman, especially a surfer or skater. [...] and dudess dudess (plural dudesses) A female dude, i.e. a cool female. Although as stated this usage is often a bit joking and humours rather than serious. For that matter, it can also be pointed out that dude is still only defined as a male term in the dictionary I checked.
Output: no