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.
