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.
--------
Question: 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?.

Answer: 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.


Question: What's an antonym for 'virgin'? A single word would be preferable.

Answer: This is OP's second question on EL&U, and the previous one refers to the fact that he's 'writing an application that deals with blind studies'. In light of that, I assume OP is effectively looking for a medical term. I'm not a doctor, but these people are, and they use the term coitally experienced. Here's an NGram showing they're not alone. In case anyone objects that (besides not being single-word) coitally experienced applies to males as well as females, I suggest post-coitarchal or perhaps my own neologism coitarchated (which I think would be well enough understood on first encounter by people working in that area). Coitarche (first experience of full intercourse) didn't really enter the lexicon until the early '80s, but it's clearly formed by association with menarche (a pubescent girl's first period), so I think that's good enough to say coitarche and derivatives relate more to the female than the male side of the experience.


Question: ... Fiction writers (eye roll) To be burned at the stake If we can't come up with a verb, perhaps a corresponding noun or adjective would suffice. 15th century historical fiction, so modern terms such as marshmallowed wouldn't really help. Here is my sample: You, the accused, have been found guilty of practicing Judaism as a Christian. This heresy against our Lord Savior carries the penalty of ____(noun). Or [C]onvicted of heresy, you are to be ____(verb).

Answer:
There is immolate: to kill or destroy (someone or something) by fire You also have the noun immolation and the adjective immolated. Now the thing is it doesn't have to be at a stake. It could be, say, in a cage. The word has been around since the 15th century.


