99% you say? According to the US department of homeland security office of immigration statistics, the number of non-naturalized permanent residents (green card) in the US is almost twice as many as naturalized citizens. If you discount the large metropolitan areas, the number is more like 3 to 1. You can poke around at:

http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/index.htm

So I must stand behind my previous comment.

By the way, my mother-in-law has been living in the US on a green card since the 60's, raised a family, and has no intention of renouncing her UK citizenship or becoming an American citizen. She still pays income taxes, doesn't get to vote, but does avoid jury duty.

My grandparents on both sides emigrated to the US. None became citizens.

"First generation american" was not listed in my dictionary, but after having checked some more, I would also agree that there is ambiguity about the expression.

While "I am living in B" does suggest something temporary, do note that "I live in B" does not preclude a temporary arrangement. Thus, in the example you gave, either would be acceptable unless you intentionally wanted to make it clear that your arrangement was temporary.

dyske, I think you missed the point a bit. The parents aren't zero generation Americans. They're not natural born Americans at all. "generations" doesn't refer to everyone in the family tree. It refers to the number of family generations born in America. I see you added the word "naturalized". Far more often, the parents aren't naturalized, in which case they're not Americans at all.

gee confused, is that a trick question? When would you use the plural possessive form of autumn? If you were to say "Autumn's change in temperature...", that would still be the singular possessive, even if you were talking about every autumn, not just this autumn. I suppose you could say "The past twelve autumns' changes in temperature were excessive", which would use the plural possessive form and would be spelled "autumns'."

I don't know if this is a rule or not, but if it were the subject of the sentence, I would use "he and Ariel...", not "Ariel and he...", that is, I would not try to parallel the "I comes last" rule. The reason I would do it this way, is "he" is singular and "he and Ariel" is now plural. If "he" comes after "Ariel" then you would have the singular "he" followed by the plural form of the verb. Now, this would not be incorrect gramar, but it might be awkward to say: Ariel and he have funny names. The "... he have..." might sound strange even if correct.

"Hi, you" sounds like something you'd say awkwardly when you've forgotton someone's name. I think I've heard it used that way on some sitcom as a joke.

Usually, when used in the singular, it's quite clear who you're talking to, so you'd just say, "hi", or "hi, Bill", or whatever.

Churba may be correct as for as is goes, but it doesn't answer gargeug's question. Gareug already knows what "touche" means.

I believe "Ha Ha, charade you are" doesn't mean "touche" per se, but actually means something like "you big phoney, I'm onto you".
I think the Pink Floyd song is the origin of the expression. The song is an indictment of greedy, powerseeking people. The lyric, "Ha Ha, charade you are" seems to be just a poetic version of "you are a charade", a phoney, a pretender, a travesty, etc.

for some interesting and useful discussions see:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/B000024D4R/002-7770105-8764842

or

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=95;t=000735;p=1

And just for the record, in fencing, "touche" simply means to score a point by touching one's opponent with one's foil. Fencing does have some peculiar rules about defending from an attack before launching a counter-attack (reposte), hence the metaphor.

A possible reply that I think means the same thing is "I'm not sure, but maybe I could."
or, alternatively, "I'm not sure, but I might be able to." You could simply say, "I'm not sure, but I might", or "I'm not sure, but I could.", but these last two alternatives, while close, do not convey exactly the same meaning.

While I agree that anonymous is an adjective, don't just dismiss the plural issue as a dumb question. I think it's quite an interesting one. Why, isn't the very example of "posted by anonymous" worthy of examination? One sees it all the time, but it really implies "posted by an anonymous author". Isn't it a strange construct? I might say, "I was passed by a blue car" but I would never say "I was passed by blue" even if the context was clear.
As for "Look at all the anonymouses on this site" being incorrect, I have to disagree. I think Dave hit the nail on the head. Gee, at the very least, every word is a noun when you are treating it as a word and not its actual meaning.

When you log on you are on the system. When you log in you are in; inside a particular area.