1 Topic by Dirk B. (edited by Dirk B. 2018-12-30 22:53:42)

Topic: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

Many of my reviewers, including some of the best on the site, keep pointing out that one should write 'stood' instead of 'stood up'. For example, 'Father Romano stood when the cardinal entered,' vs. 'Father Romano stood up when the cardinal entered.' The first always strikes me as odd because it has two possible meanings: 'Father Romano stood around...' vs. 'Father Romano stood up...' Granted, it is almost always clear from context which meaning is intended, but I always trip over 'stood,' expecting 'stood up' since that's how I was taught back in the Second Age of Middle Earth. 'Stood,' therefore, takes me out of the story.

Thoughts?
Dirk

Quote Post 1

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

"rose" or possibly "came to his feet" might work as well.

Bill

Quote Post 2

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

Rose I really like.

Quote Post 3

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

I've always classified "stood" as one of those words that fall in the mundane category. Similar words are "walked", "spoke", "saw", "thought", and a few more that could be made much more colorful and to the point. I do agree with others that "stood up" is rather redundant and would flag it myself.

Bill

Quote Post 4

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

Thanks, Bill.

Quote Post 5

6 Reply by vern (edited by vern 2018-12-29 20:45:44)

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

The problem with language police is they may be correct in one sense, but wrong in another. Sure it is common sense that if someone who is sitting stood, then they must of necessity have stood up. That's a given. However, it is also a given that many, many folks say "stood up" naturally even though common sense would tell them stood says the same thing one word shorter. Our problem as reviewers and authors is that we are "looking" for these picky things to point out as reviewers and we as authors tend to want to delete them when pointed out because it does make sense and less is most always considered better -- after all words cost to print when we become published authors.

I dare say that most of us would not notice the distinction between "stood" and "stood up" before we started our journey toward becoming published authors and began delving into all the do's and don'ts of that coveted goal. We used to read for pleasure as most of the buying public still does. Now, we read with an eye toward finding something wrong, no matter how inconsequential to the story being told. In the end, we as authors must thank the reviewer for their diligence in pointing out such things, but then decide if it is really something that should be a major concern when it is a rare occurrence within the work as a whole.

Therein lies the rub. We hate to make these simple decisions when there is really no right or wrong involved. Our language of choice gives us too many ways of saying the same thing and regardless of what we choose, someone will disagree and they will be right on their end of the continuum. And someone else will be right on the other end of the continuum. When in doubt, go with your gut, or flip a coin. You will be right in someone's eyes, hopefully your own. In essence, we are too picky as reviewers and too malleable as authors. Take care. Vern

Edited to add space between para.

Quote Post 6

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

Not only 'stood' vs 'stood up,' but remember those old traffic signs that said "No Standing," which meant not to stop your car in a certain place, even if the driver was inside and the motor was running? In other words, no taking up space. I say, if the situation calls for the action of standing up rather than the mere state of standing still, use it!

Authors, gird your loins and write what you want to say!

Quote Post 7

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

I went with Bill's suggestion of 'rose.' It sounds a little snooty, but it avoids me cringing the way I would if I wrote 'stood' without 'up.'

Quote Post 8

9 Reply by Temple Wang (edited by Temple Wang 2018-12-29 22:54:16)

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

Lordy.  What an ado about nothing ... “stood up” is fine “stood” is fine.

Dirk stood.
Dirk stood up.

Dirk stood from the table.
Dirk stood up from the table.

They both mean precisely the same thing—and neither are confusing.  One version just has two words, one of which is totally superfluous—unless it’s your aim to jack up your word count.  For some (waves hand), useless words like stood “up” and sat “down” and crouched “down” and rose “up” and about 90% of the instances of the word “that” are merely a pet peeve against wasting wordcount.  Why put in a useless word when you can save that precious wordcount for a “great word” (preferably an awesome verb in place of a silly verb/adverb combo like “ran fast”) somewhere else?  It’s a personal preference. If you don’t agree, just ignore it and quit handwringing over minutiae.

Unless of course, Dirk was expecting her to arrive at 5 and she didn’t.  Then he was definitely “stood up.”  LOL

Quote Post 9

10 Reply by Temple Wang (edited by Temple Wang 2018-12-29 22:29:57)

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

vern wrote:

The problem with language police is they may be correct in one sense, but wrong in another. Sure it is common sense that if someone who is sitting stood, then they must of necessity have stood up. That's a given. However, it is also a given that many, many folks say "stood up" naturally even though common sense would tell them stood says the same thing one word shorter. Our problem as reviewers and authors is that we are "looking" for these picky things to point out as reviewers and we as authors tend to want to delete them when pointed out because it does make sense and less is most always considered better -- after all words cost to print when we become published authors.

I dare say that most of us would not notice the distinction between "stood" and "stood up" before we started our journey toward becoming published authors and began delving into all the do's and don'ts of that coveted goal. We used to read for pleasure as most of the buying public still does. Now, we read with an eye toward finding something wrong, no matter how inconsequential to the story being told. In the end, we as authors must thank the reviewer for their diligence in pointing out such things, but then decide if it is really something that should be a major concern when it is a rare occurrence within the work as a whole.

Therein lies the rub. We hate to make these simple decisions when there is really no right or wrong involved. Our language of choice gives us too many ways of saying the same thing and regardless of what we choose, someone will disagree and they will be right on their end of the continuum. And someone else will be right on the other end of the continuum. When in doubt, go with your gut, or flip a coin. You will be right in someone's eyes, hopefully your own. In essence, we are too picky as reviewers and too malleable as authors. Take care. Vern

Edited to add space between para.

Jesus ... you need a hobby, Vern. LOL

Quote Post 10

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

j p lundstrom wrote:

Not only 'stood' vs 'stood up,' but remember those old traffic signs that said "No Standing," which meant not to stop your car in a certain place, even if the driver was inside and the motor was running? In other words, no taking up space. I say, if the situation calls for the action of standing up rather than the mere state of standing still, use it!

Authors, gird your loins and write what you want to say!

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles … ted-guide/
LOL

Quote Post 11

12 Reply by njc

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

'stood' alone implies stasis.  'stood up' implies movement.

Quote Post 12

13 Reply by Temple Wang (edited by Temple Wang 2018-12-30 00:22:14)

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

njc wrote:

'stood' alone implies stasis.  'stood up' implies movement.

Au contraire, Sauteriot,
Stood is merely the past tense of “stand”—an action verb.  “He stood” is an action that has occurred, which you use when writing in past tense.  It has to be taken in context.  As proof: “He stood from the chair.”  In present tense, you write, “He stands from the chair.”  “He is standing” implies stasis (of a sort). “He stood” only implies stasis when it has something appended that would imply stasis in context, such as: he stood stiff as a post, he stood in silence, he stood around, he stood over her, he just stood there, etc. (which are still actions, btw, as standing requires the act of acting against the force gravity—unless you are in zero gravity.)

*In Sir Sean Connery’s voice*:  “Thus endeth the lesson.”

Quote Post 13

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

Temple Wang wrote:
vern wrote:

The problem with language police is they may be correct in one sense, but wrong in another. Sure it is common sense that if someone who is sitting stood, then they must of necessity have stood up. That's a given. However, it is also a given that many, many folks say "stood up" naturally even though common sense would tell them stood says the same thing one word shorter. Our problem as reviewers and authors is that we are "looking" for these picky things to point out as reviewers and we as authors tend to want to delete them when pointed out because it does make sense and less is most always considered better -- after all words cost to print when we become published authors.

I dare say that most of us would not notice the distinction between "stood" and "stood up" before we started our journey toward becoming published authors and began delving into all the do's and don'ts of that coveted goal. We used to read for pleasure as most of the buying public still does. Now, we read with an eye toward finding something wrong, no matter how inconsequential to the story being told. In the end, we as authors must thank the reviewer for their diligence in pointing out such things, but then decide if it is really something that should be a major concern when it is a rare occurrence within the work as a whole.

Therein lies the rub. We hate to make these simple decisions when there is really no right or wrong involved. Our language of choice gives us too many ways of saying the same thing and regardless of what we choose, someone will disagree and they will be right on their end of the continuum. And someone else will be right on the other end of the continuum. When in doubt, go with your gut, or flip a coin. You will be right in someone's eyes, hopefully your own. In essence, we are too picky as reviewers and too malleable as authors. Take care. Vern

Edited to add space between para.

Jesus ... you need a hobby, Vern. LOL

Well, yeah, but this is my hobby while I wait for appropriate weather for golf. And my fellow poker players prefer me to do this than take their money, lol. Take care. Vern

Quote Post 14

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

vern wrote:

Well, yeah, but this is my hobby while I wait for appropriate weather for golf. And my fellow poker players prefer me to do this than take their money, lol. Take care. Vern

Well, then, rant til your heart’s content, old friend ... and may Spring arrive none too soon to wash away this orange that stains us ...

Quote Post 15

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

My hobby is asking seemingly harmless questions that mushroom into nuclear war with hypersonic weapons. If that doesn't make the hair on your neck stand/stand up, then I/me don't know what will.

Quote Post 16

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

Dirk B. wrote:

My hobby is asking seemingly harmless questions that mushroom into nuclear war with hypersonic weapons. If that doesn't make the hair on your neck stand/stand up, then I/me don't know what will.

You’d think you’d know better by now ... LOL
I bet when you were a kid you “silent-farted” in church just to watch the reactions ...

Quote Post 17

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

Temple Wang wrote:

Lordy.  What an ado about nothing ... “stood up” is fine “stood” is fine.

Dirk stood from the table.
Dirk stood up from the table.

They both mean precisely the same thing—and neither are confusing.

They may mean the same thing depending on context.
My first thought on your first sentence was that Dirk stood away from the table—that he was waiting for the table to be set, or some such.
The second sentence seems unambiguously to say that Dirk was seated at the table and rose.

As writers we should strive to eliminate ambiguities like this.

Memphis Trace

Quote Post 18

19 Reply by Temple Wang (edited by Temple Wang 2018-12-30 09:52:55)

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

Memphis Trace wrote:
Temple Wang wrote:

Lordy.  What an ado about nothing ... “stood up” is fine “stood” is fine.

Dirk stood from the table.
Dirk stood up from the table.

They both mean precisely the same thing—and neither are confusing.

They may mean the same thing depending on context.
My first thought on your first sentence was that Dirk stood away from the table—that he was waiting for the table to be set, or some such.
The second sentence seems unambiguously to say that Dirk was seated at the table and rose.

As writers we should strive to eliminate ambiguities like this.

Memphis Trace

It’s a good bet the sentence would not appear in isolation.  The context would be Dirk and Vern sitting at a table:

“I don’t give a shit what you say, Vern.  I’m going to stick every useless word I can imagine in my prose, and you can’t stop me.  You or Empress Wang and her ‘delete’ remarks.  I’ll tell you, I’ve had just about enough of that persnickety Chinese bitch.”

“Go on, then, damn your hide.”  Vern flung his half-eaten waffle at the cat, which yowled and darted into the living room. 

Dirk stood from the table.  “I will.  Just watch me.  But first, I’m going to find Memphis Trace and teach that old fart about context, ambiguities, and how to stand up.”  He broke wind silently and stormed out the door.

:-)
Just messin’ with you, Memphis.  If you need “up” to understand “stand” clearly, well then, by God, you use “up”—and tell me and anyone else who doesn’t need “up” to blow it out our arses....  Now, stand “up” and have a Happy New Year!!!

Quote Post 19

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

Temple Wang wrote:

“I don’t give a shit what you say, Vern.  I’m going to stick every useless word I can imagine in my prose, and you can’t stop me.  You or Empress Wang and her ‘delete’ remarks.  I’ll tell you, I’ve had just about enough of that persnickety Chinese bitch.”

... stick ... into ... 

To stand up specifically refers to the process of moving from a seated or bent position to an upright position; obverse, sit down; therefore, that useless word up changes the meaning from a vague standing to a clear movement of action. This is probably not something taught in ESL.  Stood up from the table is precise and stood from the stable is vague, possibly from any manner of distance, except to say not sitting at, near, under, behind, on, or at a mile away.

Quote Post 20

21 Reply by Charles_F_Bell (edited by Charles_F_Bell 2018-12-30 13:12:59)

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

vern wrote:

The problem with language police is they may be correct in one sense, but wrong in another.
[...]

more deconstructionist babbling.

Si je ne peux pas danser, je ne voulais pas faire partie de votre révélation. Excusez-moi, révolution.

Quote Post 21

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
Temple Wang wrote:

“I don’t give a shit what you say, Vern.  I’m going to stick every useless word I can imagine in my prose, and you can’t stop me.  You or Empress Wang and her ‘delete’ remarks.  I’ll tell you, I’ve had just about enough of that persnickety Chinese bitch.”

... stick ... into ... 

To stand up specifically refers to the process of moving from a seated or bent position to an upright position; obverse, sit down; therefore, that useless word up changes the meaning from a vague standing to a clear movement of action. This is probably not something taught in ESL.  Stood up from the table is precise and stood from the stable is vague, possibly from any manner of distance, except to say not sitting at, near, under, behind, on, or at a mile away.

HAPPY NEW YEAR, CHUCK!!!  I knew this one would bring you skittering out from under the baseboards eventually.  I missed your misogynistic, racist quips. What the hell took you so long?

ESL ... that’s funny, Chuck.  I bow to your far greater knowledge of English.  You have writing skills and command of English I could never hope to come close to.

While I will grant you that “... stick ...into” is grammatically correct for narrative, what you are picking at is dialogue.  Dialogue needs to “sound” realistic, not look grammatically correct, necessarily.  To that end, the “in” sounds better to my ear as dialogue in that sentence for the character “I” created.    But, then again, dialogue is in the “ear of the listener,” so if “your” characters want to “stick into” then by all means have your characters “stick into.”   Or, you could have them “stick it up” your ...oh, never mind. *blush*

As for the rest of what you wrote, golly, Chuck, it’s just too highfalutin for me to understand ‘cause me no speaky Engrish velly good.  But I’m sure you got a point in there somewhere, and I’m sure it’s right, because English bein’ your first language an’ all, I wouldn’t dare question you. 

So, in closing, if you wanna stand “up,” Chuck, well, by golly, you go ahead and do it.  Precisely.  But take care when you do stand up that you don’t bump your chitinous carapace or antennae on the baseboard.

PS: check the bottom of your tarsi for horseshit from when you “stood from the ‘stable’ ”...

PSS: you really oughta lighten up, Chuck.  Humor makes it all worth it.  Your gonna have a stroke if you don’t, and God would I miss messin’ with you.

And Happy New Year, and may all your trolling in 2019 be joyous.

Quote Post 22

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
vern wrote:

The problem with language police is they may be correct in one sense, but wrong in another.
[...]

more deconstructionist babbling.

Si je ne peux pas danser, je ne voulais pas faire partie de votre révélation. Excusez-moi, révolution.

LOL, so glad you could provide us with a bit of entertainment; haven't had a good belly laugh since playing Santa on Christmas Eve. Sorry, I can't stick around at the moment to enjoy more of your humor, but alas, I'm off to Charleston, SC to enjoy a couple days of golf, my go to hobby when I need to get serious. I do appreciate your sense of humor, so thanks for putting me in a relaxed mood for the long drive. Happy New Year -- drink lots of water to keep your brain from dehydrating further from the eggnog. Take care. Vern

Quote Post 23

24 Reply by B Douglas Slack (edited by B Douglas Slack 2018-12-30 15:15:15)

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

Dirk B. wrote:

My hobby is asking seemingly harmless questions that mushroom into nuclear war with hypersonic weapons. If that doesn't make the hair on your neck stand/stand up, then I/me don't know what will.

LOL. An exchange like this on another site I can name (that begins with the letters Booksie), would have resulted in exactly the above-named devastation. This thread should be made a sticky as it contins something for everyone.

Bill

Quote Post 24

Re: Psychiatric discourse on the correct use of 'up'

hey all. Sorry to wade into this. Here's some interesting data.

Note: Germanic languages take prepositions on their native verbs. They generally don't on borrowed Latin verbs.
examples:
Eng: Bob climbed up
Lat: Bob ascended
Eng: Bob climbed down (Remember this beastie from another thread?)
Lat: Bob descended

This is part of a general debate French speakers have learning English:
Bob walked across the street
Bob traversait la rue
In Romance languages you just cross the street. It's hard to understand why in English you have to cross-across the street.

Back to the point. Stolen verbs in English don't need prepositions. "Stood" is not stolen. Ergo it takes the preposition.
That said, "Bob crossed the street" has worked its way into the language illegally. If English had language police, this use would have been banned 100 years ago, and the language would still look like Elizabethan times.

Consider: "Bob crossed the street"
By default, middle English speakers would ask: Crossed with what?
Modern English speaker: Crossed intransitively, of course.

Quote Post 25