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.

Example Input: Is singular correct, or is plural of 'credential' correct for a single username & password pair?.
Example Output: This isn't a question you can answer by thinking about the grammar - it's just a case of conventional usage. I've previously worked in the tech industry, and we would always say credentials, never credential. That would still be true even if the credentials were a single item like a certificate. [Edit to add: but Samuel has provided a counter-example to this in a comment on the OP.] In wider English, credential is valid - it's used for example in this Wikipedia article - but it's still more common to use the plural (see Oxford Dictionaries for confirmation). For example, I could say that I have presented my credentials to someone if I have shown them my passport, even though I've only shown them one physical item.

Example Input: Sometimes I go through articles and find the expression utilize, I've always been wondering if there are special cases in which it should be used instead of used. Also because google ngram clearly shows that used is used (sorry for that ;D) much more. Thanks for your help and happy new year!.
Example Output: Some dictionaries gloss utilize as using something for a purpose that it is not normally employed for. But prescriptive grammarians are pretty clear on such use. Fowler in Modern English Usage (p670) says: If differentiation were possible between utilize and use it would be that utilize has the special meaning of make good use of, especially of something that was not intended for the purpose but will serve. But this distinction has disappeared beyond recall; utilize is now ordinarily treated as a LONG VARIANT of use. A form is enclosed herewith for favour of your utilization is an example of the pretentious diction that prefers the long word. Partidge in Usage and Abusage (p343) is typically blunt: utilize is, 99 times out of 100, much inferior to use; the other one time it is merely inferior. And here is the more contemporary Grammar Girl's similar take on the issue: [link] Nevertheless, this Usage Note from TheFreeDictionary indicates when utilize might indeed be the better choice: A number of critics have remarked that utilize is an unnecessary substitute for use. It is true that many occurrences of utilize could be replaced by use with no loss to anything but pretentiousness, for example, in sentences such as They utilized questionable methods in their analysis or We hope that many commuters will continue to utilize mass transit after the bridge has reopened. But utilize can mean 'to find a profitable or practical use for.' Thus the sentence The teachers were unable to use the new computers might mean only that the teachers were unable to operate the computers, whereas The teachers were unable to utilize the new computers suggests that the teachers could not find ways to employ the computers in instruction.

Example Input: Whenever I hear statements like 'It was a great deal for he and I' and 'Call Karen and I in the morning,' I die a little. Such solecisms, as Twain said in another context (Cooper's prose style), 'grate upon the fastidious ear.' Moreover, I know that these things will likely become accepted usage in time, if that hasn't already happened. As someone who tries to be careful with words and speech, I feel almost a moral obligation to hold the line against this kind of decline. I'm not a word snob; I say 'ain't' when it works for emphasis, and so on. I've tried suggesting the grammatical alternative to the above constructions, but even when I phrase my suggestion in the gentlest possible way it never works well and I almost always wind up feeling pedantic and priggish at best, and at worst I feel I've alienated someone. What's the general opinion here? Is it best to just let these things slide or to take up the fight? In sum, is there a good way to promote good grammar, or at least protect it from the most egregious violations?.
Example Output:
There is nothing wrong with having gut reactions to the way that people say things. I am completely aware that the standard/educated version of a language is arbitrary (i.e. is no more 'correct' in any real sense than any dialect), and even still, I have pet peeves and things that irk me about people's language usage. I think these are unavoidable, just like my reaction to certain fashion choices that people make in their outfits. But, like with fashion, there is very little objective truth to my judgment about any of it. I try not to actually challenge people on uses that bother me; aside from the arbitrariness of language, every bit of evidence suggests that stopping language change in any significant way is like going to the beach and trying to stop the tide from coming in. There was a more in-depth discussion about this in a previous question. That said, I do believe there is a certain time and place where standards and clarity are important. In formal contexts, information is often supposed to be presented in a certain way, and, generally, these conventions benefit everyone. Also, following certain language conventions in these situations can eliminate ambiguity. If I am asked to proofread an academic paper that my colleague has written, I would make corrections for things that I would never object to otherwise.

