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.

[Q]: Question: Most grammar checkers are capable of detecting the the misuse of "your" and "you're"; providing the necessary correction. I'm curious though, is there any sentence that can be constructed where replacing "your" with "you're" keeps the sentence grammatically correct, but changes the meaning? If this is not possible, what grammar rules are in place that prevents these edge cases from occurring? 
Answer: a. I love you and your bananas. b. I love you and you're bananas. This particular case depends on the your/you're coming after an independent clause followed by "and," since its feasibility depends on functioning either as a second direct object or as another independent clause. It also depends on the noun serving either as a thing that someone might be in possession of (the bananas we eat) or as an adjective or noun complement describing a person (bananas=crazy). Easiest if that noun is plural or uncountable. The same sentence could be constructed with nuts, garbage, and other nouns which I'll let you brainstorm because my stormer hurts. You can also (and thanks to @Barmar for drawing attention to this) use verbs, in which case they act as a gerund with the possessive pronoun and a present participle with the "you're." As in: a. I love you and your cooking. b. I love you and you're cooking. Or: a. I despise you and your smoking. b. I despise you and you're smoking.
[A]: yes


[Q]: Question: I believe there is a term for a person who uses 'expert sounding' terminology and exudes confidence, even when their actual abilities are significantly short of their 'presentation'. Using 'wine' a subject.... if a person described a taste as: Magnificent bouquet, the esters resonate with hints of mulberry and asparagus. This must be an oak-matured red from Bordeaux. Perhaps.... 2003 vintage, that was a year when unusual rainfall produced an outstanding crop that had the same rich tannins. A person describing the wine like that has apparent confidence, apparent technical expertise, and so on. Yet, if he was a fraud, and knew nothing about wines, and the "wine" was really vinegar.... what would you call that person? Additionally, this would not be a one-off thing. This would be a person who consistently "bamboozles" people, and only when you dig below the posturing, or put them in the company of a 'real' expert, do you see the reality. A fraud, a cheat, an imposter. Those would be true, but I'm sure there's a word which also covers the confidence, charisma, and presentation style too. I just can't think of it. 
Answer: We can call this person a poseur or poser. The Wikipedia page provides a fairly good explanation of the term, its use, and its etymology. Pronouncing it as "poser" sounds hip in a surferish subculture way, while pronouncing it as "poseur" (Frenching it up, so to speak) can sound, ironically enough, affected. But appropriate when someone's showing false pedantry (not a single word, but a useful and relevant phrase), especially about French wine.
[A]: no


[Q]: Question: Were Shakespeare books translated to contemporary English? Which version is more common? Is there a rule to choose which books will have its language updated? Are poems updated too? From which year I should expect that books have a "translation"? 
Answer: I think books regarded as suitable for children, such as Gulliver's Travels, might be the most likely to have their English modified. Then there's Huckleberry Finn: Required Reading Edition's much-mocked removal of the n-word and the like. I wouldn't quite call it a Bowdlerization as it's reflecting changing attitudes.
[A]:
no


