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]: 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.'.
[EX A]: In British English, 'Naysayer' is common for someone who says that something is not possible, won't work, shouldn't be tried, etc.

[EX Q]: 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.
[EX A]: Correction: what annoys you is people writing 'would of' when they are saying /wdv/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would've. The vowel of the preposition 'of' is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /v/. Thus 'would've' and 'would of' are homophones. So no surprise that some people spell it that way, even though it makes no grammatical sense. Would've can be even further reduced to /wd/, which some people spell woulda as a kind of phonetic eye dialect to represent actual speech or set an informal tone. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda, musta. Spelling as it sounds can yield amusing results: Along the way the details of his past are sordid out and he realizes that what he once thought about his parents isn't the truth at all. Amazon.com Review. A speaker of British English, of course, would never write sorted in this manner, but with an American flapped t, it's a perfect fit.

[EX Q]: I'm almost sure it's 36 thousands, since we're talking about 36 not 1. But I'm in doubt because 36 already indicates that it's more than 1, so maybe, just maybe, it could be 36 thousand?.
[EX A]:
Oh, The grand old Duke of York, He had ten thousand men; He marched them up to the top of the hill, And he marched them down again. You can have thousands of soldiers, but when you are being exact, you have n thousand of them. same for hundreds, dozens or millions.