Nathan Greenfield Posted 11 December , 2006 Share Posted 11 December , 2006 Pals: I am in the middle of a debate about whether "Stood To" and "Stand To" are capitalized and take quotation marks. Obviously, if I am quoting someone saying either the words appear in quotation marks. But, if I am narrating, i.e. The 10th Battalion "Stood To" or Stood To or stood to, which is correct. Cheers, NMG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 11 December , 2006 Share Posted 11 December , 2006 Good question, Nathan and one to which I also would like a definitive answer. I write it as "Stood To". I'm not sure why I do this apart from fact that it looks right to me. I think it's because a verbal order would have been to given to "Stand To" and, if I was narrating this, I would, correctly, put it in quotes. To my eye, to leave it without quotes and in lower case would simply look odd. And, possibly, very odd, depending on what was written immediately after. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 11 December , 2006 Share Posted 11 December , 2006 I agree. "Stood To" and "Stand To" now both of you go out and get a life Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Greenfield Posted 11 December , 2006 Author Share Posted 11 December , 2006 Mick: The problem is not so much my getting a life as my publisher's proof reader getting one! NMG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 11 December , 2006 Share Posted 11 December , 2006 Mick: The problem is not so much my getting a life as my publisher's proof reader getting one! NMG You have to proof read the proof reader!!!! put me down for one of your books whatever its about...sounds like its taken some graft. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 11 December , 2006 Share Posted 11 December , 2006 Nathan, The 10th Bn stood-to at 6.00 am. "The 10th Bn will stand-to at 6.00 am." Stand-to for the 10th Bn was at 6.00 am. At 6.00 am the 10th Bn was ordered to 'Stand to'. Mick (Freelance editor and proofreader) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 11 December , 2006 Share Posted 11 December , 2006 to leave it without quotes and in lower case would simply look odd. The 10th Bn stood-to at 6.00 am. No, it doesn't (at least not with the hyphen). I take it all back. Thanks, Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marina Posted 11 December , 2006 Share Posted 11 December , 2006 Nathan, The 10th Bn stood-to at 6.00 am. "The 10th Bn will stand-to at 6.00 am." Stand-to for the 10th Bn was at 6.00 am. At 6.00 am the 10th Bn was ordered to 'Stand to'. Mick (Freelance editor and proofreader) Satisfyingly precise and somehow lovely, Mick! Marina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 Satisfyingly precise and somehow lovely, Mick! Marina Your Royal Highness is too kind. If you ever need one of your Proclamations proofread .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 But why the hyphen? 'The battalion stood to arms' is the original. So why invent a hyphen [-] in the short version? Also, Stand To! is a military command, short for 'Stand to arms!' and takes an exclamation mark, much as 'Attention!'. I see no reason for quotes ['' or ""] at all, they are absent in much contemporary Great War writing. If in doubt check with the Western Front Association, who know a thing or two. Perhaps modern usage in the freelance editor and proof-reading trade has lost touch with military origins? Saying something is so in 2006 doesn't make it so in 1914. This from an impeccable source: The places where it does matter are summarized in the Oxford Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage (2004), the most important being to make clear the unifying of the sense in compound expressions such as punch-drunk, cost-benefit analysis, or weight-carrying, or compounds in attributive use (that is, in front of the noun), as in an up-to-date list or the well-known performer; to join a prefix to a proper name (e.g. anti-Darwinian); to avoid misunderstanding by distinguishing phrases such as twenty-odd people and twenty odd people, or a third-world conflict and a third world conflict; to clarify the use of a prefix, as in recovering from an illness and re-covering an umbrella; to clarify compounds with similar adjacent sounds, such as sword-dance, co-opt, tool-like. to represent the use of a common element in a list of compounds, such as four-, six-, and eight-legged animals. in dividing a word across a line-break. Clearly, stand to is not any of these, or if so, which? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick H Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 Blimey, I feel like sitting down or is it "Sitting-Down" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 they are absent in much contemporary Great War writing......(SNIP)........ Saying something is so in 2006 doesn't make it so in 1914. And therein lies my problem. I don't know Nathan's reason for posting the thread but my quest for clarification relates to the modern inexpert readers of my various website pages. To write - The battalion stood to - without further explanation would probably be meaningless to the vast majority of those readers. I think I'll carry on with the quotes or, perhaps for a change, include a hyphen now & again. Maybe both sometimes. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 And therein lies my problem. I don't know Nathan's reason for posting the thread but my quest for clarification relates to the modern inexpert readers of my various website pages. To write - The battalion stood to - without further explanation would probably be meaningless to the vast majority of those readers. I think I'll carry on with the quotes or, perhaps for a change, include a hyphen now & again. Maybe both sometimes. John But writing 'stood to' serves no purpose because it fails to explain, surely? I recommend stood to arms, or a footnote! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 I recommend stood to arms, Good suggestion. Ta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 some you win .............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 Perhaps modern usage in the freelance editor and proof-reading trade has lost touch with military origins? I make no claim of period authenticity for the use of the hyphen. I offered it for two reasons, firstly to unify the concept and avoid confusion in the mind of a modern reader, and secondly to avoid the intrusiveness of capitalisation or quotation marks. Direct quotes from contemporary published sources should, of course, be reproduced as originally printed. Quotes from laxly-punctuated handwritten sources are generally punctuated with as light a hand as possible, adding punctuation only where absolutely necessary to achieve clarity — unless, of course, the hurried nature of the original writing is part of the reason for citing it. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 12 December , 2006 Share Posted 12 December , 2006 avoid confusion in the mind of a modern reader I'm starting to feel like that character in the "Fast Show" (quotes and capitals). You know - the one who can never make his mind and agrees, in turn, with each of his mates' comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Greenfield Posted 13 December , 2006 Author Share Posted 13 December , 2006 The question originated in a discussion with my editor. I'm just now doing the final edit on a book on the Canadians at 2nd Ypres that will be published here in Canada in the late spring of '07. NMG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnreed Posted 13 December , 2006 Share Posted 13 December , 2006 Surely Stand To was ordered a half an hour before first light. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodB Posted 14 December , 2006 Share Posted 14 December , 2006 stand down, stand by, stand to, front up, throw up, kick off (he kicked off) these are all examples of idiomatic intransitive phrasal verbs. As such they can be written like any one-word verb. "March". The men marched. "Stand to !". The men stood to. Hypothetical exchange :- "Stand to !". "Do you want me to stand to in the idiomatic intransitive phrasal verb sense like in throw up ?". "&^% yer on a charge". I think the equivalent nouns are expressed as single words as they have a specific meaning :- standdown, standto, kickoff I would include a footnote or glossary for such terms as stand to in a work for military novices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now