Yes. One can stand in line, for example. "Stand" is a continuous state, "stand up" is a change in state. "Stand up" is therefore clearer and less ambiguous, although the reader can probably fill in the "up" if you've recently established that the character is sitting.
Yes. One can stand in line, for example. "Stand" is a continuous state, "stand up" is a change in state. "Stand up" is therefore clearer and less ambiguous, although the reader can probably fill in the "up" if you've recently established that the character is sitting.
The phone rang so I climbed up out of my chair and grabbed it"? This is rather harsh, I meant to say it in a more subtle way. Climbing and grabbing is rather physical to me.
Climbing and grabbing implies significant exertion, and possibly coordination problems (if the character has difficulty getting out of a chair then the grabbing isn't likely to be because they're energetic). It would make sense (and would be an effective piece of showing)if the character were unwell or particularly lethargic.
I never saw it that way. It is tricky with literature because I misread it as some thing rather grubby or gerish. I would not use these words to portray what you just said. I would propably use words like: he got up slowly off his chair and try to reach out for the phone that was ringing. His condition had slowed him lately ....
Here is another piece I have stumbbled across: I enjoyed their company so much I felt like inviting them back to my home again. or I enjoyed being with them so much I was thinking about inviting them back again.
It really depends on context. If you've not established that he's unwell then something like that would do the trick. If you have already established it then that would be labouring the point somewhat, whereas "The phone rang so I climbed up out of my chair and grabbed it" more subtly reinforces the point. You don't tell the reader again, but you use language consistent with the established situation.
Of course, one can stand up, stand down, stand in line, stand to, stand high, probably stand sideways, or to the right and left, or even upside down, but it was to the context I was referring. If one is sitting in a chair and then they stand, I think we both agree the reader will know they are "standing up," even if it's unclear what they're standing on.
one can say sit down on the chair then stand up. but not say get off the chair then get on the chair. like one does with get on the bus get off the bus. It does not seem to work.
I think we are agreed, as long as we are confident that the reader knows that the character was sitting down. If there's a likelihood that they didn't know or might have forgotten then the "up" adds significant extra clarity. That's the trouble with Strunk & White's advice to remove unnecessary words: words don't tidily fit into "necessary" and "unnecessary"; there's a whole mass of shades of grey inbetween in which we find almost all the words we use.
You can, but it's not the usual way one would say it. If a parent disciplines a child using a "naughty chair", though, I can easily imagine them ordering a child to get on the chair, and later telling them that they can get off the chair. "Get on the chair" makes the chair significant, whereas "sit on a chair" makes the sitting significant which is more often the way of things. In the case of the bus it's usually the bus (ie, the transport) that's significant rather than having a rest.
Yes, yes, it does. Get on/off the chair isn't the same as sitting on it, but it can be...it could also be standing on/off the chair, doing a headstand on/off a chair, laying on/off a chair, etc. The main thing, one is getting on/off the chair (they are moving onto it and off of it). To add a little to this ... there were plenty of times I remember from basic training where the DI (drill instructor) for about half an hour would continuously yell at the recruits, "Get over here right now! Get over there right now! Get up there right now! Get down here right now! You slimy piece of worm--" You should get the point...he could have easily been screaming, "Get on the chair right now! Get off the chair right now! Okay get back on the chair right now!" and so on. Proper grammar or not, which it is, I understood his meaning (understood it very well) and readers, I think, will understand what is meant by get on/off the chair. Personally I don't like the verb "got," but it occasionally has its uses...more commonly spoken (dialogue). A lot of things to take into account with it all, too, but it's perfectly fine to use.
I always got a kick out of it myself. I'll never figure out how someone could talk so fast and say the same words over and over and over again. Of course, I never let them know that.
Ok this is a major annoyance to me when I try and write it. The Use of the 'Upstair/Downstair Comma' I call it. I don't have a pen I do not have a pen. which do you usually go for and why? I don't mind it when I speak it but I do not mind it when I write it?
^ Well, the first flows better and is more informal. But depends on the character or situation you're writing about; if someone is a little bit more formal, (s)he may use the second option. Also for emphasis or in anger, you may hear the second one, again.
I thought in writing it is better to keep it without the comma because you can compensate by using other words like this: He said he did not have a pen in a hurried voice. but in SPEAKING He said he didn't or He did not have a pen depending on how you want to project it hence the intonation?!
For me, the difference comes much with the way it sounds. As VM80 put it, without the contraction, it gives it a more formal tone, which is how it should be. One shouldn't use contractions unless they just have no other choice in formal writing. With informal writing, however, it's whatever floats your boat. "He didn't have a pen" and "he did not have a pen" mean the same thing, but they sound different (I may add that "He said he didn't" and "He did not" are two different statements and do not mean the same thing). I usually judge whether to use a contraction by ear, especially in prose (occasionally in dialogue). Sometimes a simple "cannot" flows better than a "can't," but a character may be more apt to say "can't" or "isn't" or "he'll" than "cannot or "is not" or "he will." As an example, I have one particular short story where a character says, "It wasn't nothin'." Double negative, I know, but it's the way the guy talks. If written formally, it might look like, "It was not anything." But that sounds stilted, which it is. Flows better from my character, who isn't completely ignorant but never sought that higher education, with the contraction, "It wasn't anything." ...Of course, I just realized I may not have understood your question entirely. I'm not sure what you mean by "it is better to keep it without the comma because you can compensate by using other words." Like I said above, "He didn't have a pen" and "He did not have a pen" mean the same thing. "He said he didn't have a pen" means the same as "He said he did not have a pen." There's no reason (that I can see) to include extra words for the sake of including or excluding a contraction. Just had another thought ... you think it's better to exclude the apostrophe and not use the contraction because you can add descriptive words to the dialogue? Trying to spell out your examples..."He did not have a pen," he said in a hurried voice. And you mean that the underlined portion there is supposed to "make up" for the contraction? What's the difference between that and: 'He didn't have a pen,' he said in a hurried voice"? Not sure I follow... Hopefully some portion of my ramblings helped.
Thank you for all of this. I meant to say I prefer to keep my writing consistant. I would either contract or won't when I write. I decided to not contract at all because there are other ways around how you mean to say what you are writing. He said he did not have a pen. This is different from. He said he didn't have a pen. In writing you can keep the first time all the way, no contractions whatsoever and you can add other words to highlight the voice or the tone it has been said or meant it in. In speaking you can use both, according to what you mean to project to the listener. The contractions or the lack of it will signal the tone. In other words in speaking, contractions or not, are used whenever however you want. He said he did not have the pen in angry/loud/soft/genteel voice. These words compensate for the lack of contractions and makes reading more fun. I personally cannot concentrate when there is contractions then there is , then there isn't....it is distracting to me or the readers. In writing I will stick to full spellings, no contractions whatsoever because I have other words to compensate for the tone.
That's sensible for a beginner. Experienced writers might change style with narrative focus; Louis de Bernières' Captain Corelli's Mandolin does this very effectively, for example.
