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.

[EX Q]: Is there a specific reason for this? After all, it is 'boys and girls', rather than 'girls and boys'. If the boy (male) comes first here, why doesn't it come first in 'ladies and gentlemen'?.
[EX A]: It probably has to do with the phonetic and metrical properties of 'ladies and gentlemen' versus 'gentlemen and ladies.' Say them both out loud and see which one sounds better to you, intuitively. The metrical pattern of 'ladies and gentlemen' consists of (arguably) two dactyls. A dactyl is a group of three syllables where the first is stressed and the second two are unstressed. When these occur in succession, they are pleasant to the ear. ladies and gentlemen DUM da da / DUM da da The metrical pattern of 'gentlemen and ladies' falls into a much less regular pattern. It is less pleasant to the ear. It is something like a stressed syllable followed by three unstressed syllables followed by a stressed syllable followed by an unstressed syllable. gentlemen and ladies DUM da da da DUM da Our language tends to organize itself according to regular and pleasant stress patterns. My guess is that is why we feel more drawn to 'ladies and gentlemen' than 'gentlemen and ladies' and why the former has conventionalized.

[EX Q]: This is a question for English wordsmiths. Is there a word that 'feels' like the word 'ethereal' that means something ethereal that quickly disappears. Or is 'ethereal' the correct word choice for this? Ethereal was the first word that popped into my head for this. From the various definitions that I've looked at for ethereal, it says delicate, beautiful, heavenly, etc. but not necessarily quickly vanishing, except for the secondary definitions related to ether that suggests it evaporates. I'm just wondering if there is a better word than this. I'm using the term 'ethereal skill' to describe a certain type of pilot skill (instrument flying) that requires tremendous practice to achieve proficiency, and once proficiency is achieved it is a beautiful thing, but if you don't practice it regularly, that skill vanishes after a few weeks. USAGE: Instrument proficiency is an ethereal skill that once obtained must be maintained through constant and regular practice.
[EX A]: You are probably looking for the word ephemeral. ephemeral: Lasting for a very short time.

[EX Q]: Does this Bible verse have the same unfortunate double meaning in American English as it does in British English? The photo is taken from the 1984 translation of the (US) NIV. It looks as though the UK edition of the 1984 NIV had the same text; but in the 2011 update, the UK edition has ill in place of sick, while the US edition remains unchanged. I have visions of people bringing little pots of vomit...
[EX A]:
The referent is just elided here. You can read this as meaning 'sick [friends]' or 'sick [relatives].' The reason it sounds odd to British ears is that the current British colloquial usage of 'sick' as a euphemism for 'vomit' is overpowering any other interpretation for you. Since that colloquial usage is relatively unheard of in America, you are correct that the phrase sounds less odd to American ears. Perhaps that did influence the translation choices made by the NIV.