TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Possible Duplicate: Capitalization for a bullet list Let's say I have a bullet point list e.g: Point 1. Point 2. Point 3. Notice I have put a capital letter for the starting letter of every bullet point and a full stop at the end. Is this the correct way to do it? If not, what is the correct way to do it? Do I put a capital letter and no full stop, or, the other way around, a full stop and no capital letter? Alternatively, do I not put a capital letter or a full stop? Is it only necessary to put a capital letter on the first bullet point and full stop on the last bullet point? For reference, I'm from the UK so British-English grammar would apply.

SOLUTION: I found a site quoting the Chicago Manual of Style. I don't have the style manual handy, but this advice mirrors what I know from my personal experience. 'A vertical list is best introduced by a complete grammatical sentence, followed by a colon. Items carry no closing punctuation unless they consist of complete sentences. If the items are numbered, a period follows the numeral and each item begins with a capital letter. To avoid long, skinny lists, short items may be arranged in two or more columns. If items run over a line, the second and subsequent lines are usually indented.' CMOS (6.127-28) So if you're just listing points you would do: point 1 point 2 point 3 (it is only necessary to capitalize points if they are 'longer phrases' or follow a numbered list.) If you were describing them, it might be: This is something about point 1. This is something about point 2. This is something about point 3. Edit: Adding this to answer Ryan's question in the comment. Here is an example of combining both the enumeration of the items and the description, using one of the examples from the site I linked: A computer lab needs various equipment: Computers - Obviously a key component of a computer lab. Desks - You need somewhere to put the computers. Chairs - People need someplace to sit. etc.

PROBLEM: 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?.

SOLUTION: 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.

PROBLEM: I know the two phrases have been adopted into the English lexicon, but raison d'etre and joie de vivre are phrases, not words. As phrases they certainly sound better in French than would their literal translation to English. Are there any 'more English' words or expressions for the same concepts? If not, doesn't that seem odd, or is it common enough for even borrowed phrases to supplant the development of a native term? (Further, it seems a little conspicuous that a language would lack native terms for such core concepts of the human experience!).

SOLUTION:
We can trace most English words back to a time they were borrowed from another language: Image from Wikipedia.org The expressions raison d'etre and joie de vivre, are relatively recent, acquisitions: raison d'etre (n.) 'excuse for being,' 1864, first recorded in letter of J.S. Mill, from French raison d'etre, literally 'rational grounds for existence.' joie de vivre (n.) 1889, French, literally 'joy of living.' etymonline.com emphasis added I might add that the acquisition of joie de vivre seems incomplete, as the etymology lists it as French, rather than from French. It seems to have a reasonable chance of making a complete entry into English eventually, since we have always been quite hospitable toward elegant French expressions. I still italicize joie de vivre as a foreign expression in my writing, but it seems common enough that some might consider it pure English. As a reasonable intersection of the two French phrases, I like life force: noun The vital principle or animating force within living beings: The American Heritage®️ Roget's Thesaurus. The rational basis of our existence as living things is some life force that we do not yet fully understand, and joy seems to be a particularly meaningful expression of our life force. Some may complain that the word force is still too French, because it was borrowed from Old French, but it was actually quite a long time ago: c. 1300, 'physical strength,' from Old French force 'force, strength; courage, fortitude; violence, power, compulsion' (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *fortia (source also of Old Spanish forzo, Spanish fuerza, Italian forza), noun use of neuter plural of Latin fortis 'strong, mighty; firm, steadfast; brave, bold' (see fort). etymonline.com emphasis added If we concede to the objections against force, we can still be satisfied with plain old life, which is about as English as any English word can get: Old English life (dative lif) 'existence, lifetime, way of life, condition of being a living thing, opposite of death,' from Proto-Germanic *libam (cognates: Old Norse lif 'life, body,' Dutch lijf 'body,' Old High German lib 'life,' German Leib 'body'), properly 'continuance, perseverance,' from PIE *leip- 'to remain, persevere, continue; stick, adhere' (see leave (v.)). Much of the modern range of meanings was present in Old English. Meaning 'property which distinguishes living from non-living matter' is from 1560s. Sense of 'vitality, energy' is from 1580s. Extended 1703 to 'term of duration (of inanimate objects).' etymonline.com emphasis added Language is my life. Meaning: Language is my conscious rationale to work another day, and the deepest joy of my heart.