TLDR: what is the correct pronunciation of the phrase “close-clenched hand,” in Sara Teasdale’s poem “Refuge.”

I have a long-standing feud with several choir friends over a line in the Sara Teasdale poem “Refuge” as set for choir by composer Elaine Hagenberg. The line reads “Sifting through my close-clenched hand.” During rehearsals, I noticed that I was one of the only members of the choir pronouncing the word \[klos\]-clenched instead of \[kloz\]-clenched. I put the question to the rest of the choir and was met with scorn and derision. I was not able to make a coherent enough argument about my pronunciation to win over the choir, who kept saying things like, “you wouldn’t \[klos\] your hand, that makes no sense!” To make matters worse, the composer of the piece visited our choir and said she always thought the word was pronounced with a “z” sound as well. The choir took this as the final word on the subject. I know I am right about this, but I am not an expert. This argument has dragged on now for four years, resurfacing every time I see these friends. I will tolerate their snide comments no longer (I’m sorry, our time together has come to a \[klos\] haha). I need vindication. Help me, Reddit.

PS
My partner was the director of said choir, and she privately told me she agreed with me (of course, a ‘z’ sound makes no sense) but left me hanging in front of the ensemble. I will never forgive her for this.

Do you guys have a way for me to learn and keep memory and recal of word's. The hardest part os recalling .

None of the wide spread methods works for me such as spacd repetitions and such .

I need a stronger way to remember and recall words.

Or do i need a specific type of therapy?

Do people with amnesia struggle with this?i feel like my problem could be more harder than others .

Is there a type of therapy or app you recommend?

Is Ex in Expat from Out or Former?

I completely understand the rules of who and whom and what should you do when it gets complicated.

In the sentence:

"We appreciate those ---- carry our traditional values to the next generation"

The correct answer is who

But the test had another option: who they

If it was a reading comprehension plus Grammer I would have said that in the context of the paragraph, "who they" wouldn't make sense.

But I think who they is technically correct although the meaning doesnt make sense. Am I right?

If so then can you give an example in which you use "whom" plus a pronoun so I can see it in action?

Thankssss:3

this has bothered me since i was a kid (thanks internet :P)

Okay, Google Docs tells me this is wrong : "She wondered if it were [true]. So does my phone. Gemini tells me it's archaic. The truth is that I grew up marinating in old books., and all my writing instincts come from books written before 1950.

I’m curious about the function of the (what I assume is a) nominal infinitive phrase. Is it functioning as an appositive for the subject?

If not, what is its function?

Ty!

Hi everyone,

I have a question about when a word functions as a past tense verb versus when it acts as an adjective in a sentence.

For example, with the word "lost":

Why do we say:

🟢 "My key is lost"

and not:

🔴 "My key lost"?

Another example with the same word:

Why do we say:

🟢 "I think his internet connection is lost"

and not:

🔴 "I think his internet connection lost"?

Could someone explain the grammar logic behind this? Thanks in advance!

I overheard my neighbor on his phone. He said "It was y'alls-es paperwork!"

If this were a legit word, how would one actually spell it, and make it a plural possessive?

Y'allses'

Y'allse's

Y'alls's

Y'allseses'

Or something else?

Not to mention the simple (and singular/plural defying) "y'alls." If it is supposed to be "you all's" or "you alls'?" If I am addressed as y'all, are there several of me? Or are these questions even worth consideration?

The irony is that it is less time, work, and breath to just say "yours."

I use this phrase all the time to refer to things that are similar but not quite the same thing (e.g. frozen yogurt and ice cream, or golden retrievers and yellow labs). I think it’s perfectly fine, my wife thinks it’s a contradiction. Thoughts?

Masculine: "He is going to Europe in the Fall."

Feminine: "She is also going to Europe."

Plural: "They are going to Europe together."

Neutral: "But Frankie isn't going. They is staying home."

That can't be right, is it?

I am learning the German past perfect and during that process I came across this sentence below, which I had to dissect... and it left me questioning my command of the English language.

Why is the sentence "Before I had seen him, I thought he wouldn't come." correct and not the other way around?

So something along the lines of "Before I saw him, I had thought he wouldn't come." – I know "I had thought" sounds clunky and wrong here because it implies one singular thought, so maybe "I had been thinking" would be a better fit.

We always learn that past perfect is used to describe something that happened before another event in the past. So it essentially describes a "more past" past.

In our case I'd argue that the part of "thinking that he would not come" was occurring for quite some time BEFORE the action of seeing him happened. So the thinking part was the "more past" past. So I'd say if anything, this part of the sentence should be in past perfect (again, I do realise "I had thought" is weird here because it implies one thought) – or at least the first part "Before I had seen him" should NOT be in past perfect.

What am I missing?

thanks! :)

If I were writing out a measurement, let's say 11 3/4", are you meant to write "Eleven-and-three-quarters of an inch"? "Eleven-and-three-quarters inches"? Or some other secret third thing?

There are some people (especially Latin Americans) who believe this is not the case because America is a continent and therefore "of America" is just a reference to the geographical location of the United States, not its short name like Germany or Spain. How true is this?

"Many point out that it is at least evidence that Burnham has a story to tell the country about its future – something they argue Keir Starmer sorely lacked." (From PoliticsHome.)

Is the "at least evidence that Burnham has a story to tell the country about its future" a prepositional phrase in the cited sentence above?

ive been writing for 3 hours and i can infact recall what "do" and "does" have in regards to differences but in all honestly i cannot comprehend any explanations. let me kno

which do i use

"does the warmth of your own hands ever frighten you"

"Do the warmth of your own hands ever frighten you"

pretty sure its the second one but i need to know hurry quick

In the following sentence, I choose his based on the assessment that the entire clause beginning with the word who modifies the phrase officer of the Republic of Vietnam Navy**.** Others, however, find the shift from first to third person jarring. What do y'all think?

"I write these lines based on my memories as an officer of the Republic of Vietnam Navy who endured six long years in re-education camps before destiny placed the helm of a fateful vessel into his hands."

Admittedly this will sound weird out of context, but just indulge me:

Also, it's a toe ring. It's probably uncomfortable and it makes you look like one of those hippie assholes who sit around in a field juggling and Hula-Hooping all day."

I was under the impression "one of those" received a singular verb, so e.g. I feel like "sit" should actually be "sits" and that sounds way better in my head. A buddy of mine is arguing, however, that the clause described by "one of those" isn't merely 'hippie assholes', but the entirety of 'hippie assholes who sit around..." etc.

What is correct here? Should it be sit or sits?

Which of these is correct, and why?

"She was having the most interesting day she could remember ever having."

OR

"She was having the most interesting day she could ever remember having."

Can I please get a check on this sentence diagram of Darwin’s famous quote?

Darwin sentence diagram