instruction:
Given the Question and Answer pair, detect whether the answer is acceptable or not. Denote acceptable answer as "yes", otherwise denote as "no". An acceptable answer is consistent with the context in question, detailed, long, and uses general knowledge of English. Answers that are not definite and suggest a variety of options are not acceptable answers.
question:
Question: Do the English have an ancient (obsolete) verb for the action of the book opening? For example, in Russian we say otkrit' (open the book), but in the Old slavonic the verb razognuti (to unbend the book) was used.
Answer: This is a very interesting question. There may not be an old word in English that does what you describe, but it is important to note that the English word "open" relative to a book meant something different in earlier times. To open a book now usually means to part or spread the cover and the pages into a position so you can read the pages contained in the book. However, books used to be made by folding sheets of paper larger than the page size and they would be sold without trimming the edges, so when you got your new book, it would be "unopened" meaning that you couldn't turn the pages. You had to "open" the book with a dull knife (like a letter opener) by ripping along the folds. (This is why some books have ragged edges of the text block, to evoke the memory of those ripped page edges.) The OED has e. transitive. To cut open the leaves of (a book) when they have been left joined along an edge during the making; to cut open (the leaves) of such a book. You will find old books described (by knowledgable book dealers) as "unopened". This correctly means that the folded sheets are un-ripped; it doesn't mean that no-one has ever spread the covers and looked inside.
answer:
yes

question:
Question: 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?
Answer: 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.
answer:
yes

question:
Question: Possible Duplicate: When do I use "I" instead of "me?" A friend of mine asked me for advice about an e-mail he was writing. There was a sentence like this: I and my partners we are interested in investing in your product. I figured it was wrong, so I suggested: I and my partners are interested in investing in your product. This looks grammatical to me but sounds strange. Also, I have seen a lot of people writing this: Me and my partners we are interested in investing in your product. which I believe is not grammatical. So, which one of the options above is correct? Also, what would be a better choice of words?
Answer: "I and someone are interested" is grammatically correct. It is the convention in English that when you list several people including yourself, you put yourself last, so you really should say "Someone and I are interested." "Someone and I" is the subject of the sentence, so you should use the subjective case "I" rather than the objective "me". "Someone and I" clearly means two people, so you should use "are" and not "is". If it was "Someone or I ..." then you would use "is", because only one person is interested, either "someone" or "I". It is not uncommon to hear people say "Me and someone are ...", but this is wrong because it's the wrong case. When an educated person hears "Me and Billy is going to the ball game", he immediately thinks this is either a child or a very uneducated person speaking. "I and someone we ..." is incorrect because it is redundant. "We" is simply another way of saying "I and someone". It adds no new information to the sentence, and so there is no reason to include it. You can't just string together alternative ways of expressing the same idea: If you really need it for clarity or emphasis, you have to surround it with some additional words, like a "that is", or sometimes just punctuation that show its purpose in the sentence. You could say, "We, that is, Bob and I, are interested ..." All that said, "I and someone" or "Someone and I" sounds strange to me, and I suspect most English speakers, because it is an unusual use of the word "someone". When "someone" is used in a list with identifiers of other people, we usually say "someone else". Like, "Bob and someone else are interested ..." rather than "Bob and someone are interested ..." (I have no idea why this is so; it's just the convention.) "Someone" without "else" is normally only used when it's the only person: "Someone is interesteed ...".
answer:
yes