Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.

Input: Consider Input: 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'?.

Output: 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.

Input: Consider Input: I see a lot of times when something is a politically-oriented scandal that the suffix gate is added to the end of the word the scandal revolves around. Examples include: Watergate Weinergate Valijagate (Spanish for 'suitcase-gate') I believe that it originated during the Watergate scandal, but I don't know why the suffix gate was perpetuated to other scandals. Is there a name for this literary mechanism of using part of previously popularized term to elicit a comparison or similar connotation?.

Output: This is a great example of a back-formation: a word is treated as if it were composed of prefixes or suffixes, then taken apart (incorrectly) and remixed to form new words. Another famous example is cheeseburger. The burger suffix is incorrectly taken from hamburger, which is a dish from Hamburg, not a burger made from ham. Watergate was a big enough scandal, and sounds enough like it's composed of Water and gate, that the suffix has been back-formed into plenty of other scandal names.

Input: Consider Input: Are shit, shat, and shitted all correct and fine to use as the past tense of shit? After a little bit of searching it seems that they are, with shat being Old English. Is any form more common in British or American English? Erik Kowal claims that shit is mostly American English and shat British English. [M]ost Americans don't change the verb form for the past tense of certain short verbs ending in -it. So fit, spit, shit, slit and pit are thus formed both in the present and the past tense as far as Americans are concerned, whereas people from Britain would almost always use fitted, spat, shat, slitted and pitted for the past tense. What about shitted?.
Output: The OED's etymology for this word is: The form shite represents OE. *scitan, pa. t. *scat, pa. pple. -sciten (in be-sciten), corresponding to OFris. *skita (NFris. skitj, pa. t. skad, pa. pple. skedden), MLG. schiten, Dutch schijten, OHG. scian (MHG. schian, mod.G. scheissen), ONor. skita (MSw. skita, Da. skide), f. OTeut. root skit-. The now more common form shit is influenced by the pa. pple. or the related sb. As far as modern/current forms go, it says that: The present tense is either shit or shite. For the past tense, the OED gives all three of shit, shat, shitted as current. So the answer to your question is yes. For the past participle, the OED provides only shit and shat, with shitten last appearing in the 19th century. That means you won't find any one 'correct' answer. Because those variant forms are all used natively by speakers born to the language, all are therefore 'correct'. Use whatever you please.