# Another way of saying "got up" or "got to his feet"?



## cinderblock (Jan 25, 2015)

It seems so simple, but the only ones I know are "got to his feet" or "rose to his feet." Are there any other ways? Maybe "stood erect." Ugh...


----------



## popsprocket (Jan 25, 2015)

Erm...

Stood
Stood up
Rose
Climbed to his feet
Got up

It really depends on the context. One could conceivable push themselves to their feet or simple stand up.


----------



## Boofy (Jan 25, 2015)

Heaved himself up
Hefted himself up
Jumped to his feet
Shot to his feet
Clambered to his feet

I suppose it depends on what the guy is feeling at the time and how he was sitting before.


----------



## Potty (Jan 25, 2015)

He sat for a moment and waited for the dizziness to subside. When he felt able he got up, staggered sideways and nearly collapsed against the dresser.

"Got up" works fine. Just fluff it up a bit.


----------



## cinderblock (Jan 25, 2015)

Haha, thanks guys. Really liked "heaved himself up."

I have a character who's a TV repair guy, so he's constantly crouching, kneeling, and getting up. It just seemed really redundant to keep saying, "He rose back up" and "He got to his feet."


----------



## Sam (Jan 25, 2015)

You can't heave yourself up. 

Someone else heaves you to your feet.


----------



## Boofy (Jan 25, 2015)

http://conjugator.reverso.net/conjugation-english-verb-to heave oneself up.html 

I've heard it used a number of times, heh :3 

A quick *Google* brought up a whole trove of examples from literature too!


----------



## Sam (Jan 25, 2015)

It may be in other forms of literature, but that doesn't make it accurate. 

You heave someone else onto your shoulder. "Heave ~ lift or haul a heavy thing". 

Unless anatomy has changed drastically, you can't lift or haul yourself.


----------



## Sam (Jan 25, 2015)

You can 'spring' to your feet, however, and that might be a better word for the OP to use.


----------



## cinderblock (Jan 25, 2015)

Sam said:


> You can 'spring' to your feet, however, and that might be a better word for the OP to use.



The characters in the story are sauntering, brooding types. They don't "spring" or "shoot" back up lulz.

Bah I don't mind at all, heaving. I like interesting, new ways of describing things, anyway. Thank you guys.

PS: I could also say strained, I guess. Not so much struggled. They're not morbidly obese haha.


----------



## Boofy (Jan 25, 2015)

Sam said:


> It may be in other forms of literature, but that doesn't make it accurate.
> 
> You heave someone else onto your shoulder. "Heave ~ lift or haul a heavy thing".
> 
> Unless anatomy has changed drastically, you can't lift or haul yourself.



Your definition doesn't preclude a usage where the heavy thing is also the agent doing the lifting. Even if it did, our TV repairman can quite happily heave his upper body up with his thigh and calf muscles and maintain the separation between "lifter" and "lifted".

I wouldn't even agree that there are _any_ hard rules with regards to writing if it benefits the communication of a scene to the reader. I've just opened up _Catch-22 _to find examples from more talented people than myself. Page 372: 





> Colonel Cargill came storming into General Peckem's office a minute later in a furor of timid resentment


The same argument that declares "heaved" is inappropriate would call a "furor of timid resentment" a contradiction. It absolutely is, "furor" has more than enough scattered definitions and interpretations like any word but I can't find a single one that allows for a furor to be made up of timid resentment without being paradoxical. The root of "furor" is apparently from latin: _furere_, "be mad, rage". But with a phrase that could be criticised in a High School English lesson Heller paints a picture of Cargill's mannerisms that would be impossible without it, impotent before his superior but used to wielding the same superiority over his own subordinates. I don't think this sentence would be the same if it was "a state of timid resentment" or even "a flush of timid resentment". Subverting rigid definitions is, in my opinion, necessary to squeeze the best out of the words we have while being brief. 

Honestly I don't believe "heaved himself up" is anywhere near wordplay of that quality, it's acceptable without having to invoke that argument. I understand where you're coming from, heh, I'm just not sure I would agree! I guess that's language though, neh? :3


----------



## Sam (Jan 25, 2015)

There's being poetic with words and then there's breaking the laws of physics. 

Would you say a normal human being's head rotated three hundred and sixty degrees? No, because it would break the laws of physics. So unless someone can break the laws of physics to lift or haul their own body off the ground, I wouldn't use 'heaved'. 

To each their own, however.


----------



## Sc0pe (Jan 25, 2015)

Sam said:


> There's being poetic with words and then there's breaking the laws of physics.
> 
> Would you say a normal human being's head rotated three hundred and sixty degrees? No, because it would break the laws of physics. So unless someone can break the laws of physics to lift or haul their own body off the ground, I wouldn't use 'heaved'.
> 
> To each their own, however.



Don’t the legs heave the body? Sure it's one body and all but if you split the top form the bottom it would he the legs that do the heavy lifting. We know we can heave stuff and know the concept of lifting something else works so although it’s a tad stretch I won’t call it a rule breaker. The message was delivered to the reader and I think that is what’s important at the end of the day.
It kind of like saying “He ran like the wind.” Well that’s not right since wind dose not run. We can’t see wind we feel it. But the message is delivered all the same.


----------



## Sam (Jan 25, 2015)

Sc0pe said:


> Don’t the legs heave the body? Sure it's one body and all but if you split the top form the bottom it would he the legs that do the heavy lifting. We know we can heave stuff and know the concept of lifting something else works so although it’s a tad stretch I won’t call it a rule breaker. The message was delivered to the reader and I think that is what’s important at the end of the day.
> It kind of like saying “He ran like the wind.” Well that’s not right since wind dose not run. We can’t see wind we feel it. But the message is delivered all the same.



No.


----------



## Boofy (Jan 25, 2015)

The act of heaving mechanically is simply moving in one of two of the six degrees of freedom, up or down. Regardless of the identity of the mover or their relationship to the thing being moved, if I induce my body to go up or down I can be said to be heaving it. I can *heave* myself by moving myself up or down, I am indisputably the one moving myself. 

In addition I disagree that poetic writing has to obey the laws of physics. I can be said to glide into a room, but technically I would not actually be gliding. It's an interesting topic, anyway. Really makes you think about the flexibility of language. ^^


----------



## Sam (Jan 25, 2015)

So, I ask you again: would you say that a normal human being's head rotated three hundred and sixty degrees and feel that it was okay to do so? 

You can't ignore the laws of physics. But, to humour the direction this thread is going, you _can _launch your body by doing a kip-up.


----------



## J Anfinson (Jan 25, 2015)

Sam said:


> "Heave ~ lift or haul a heavy thing".



Heave- a case of retching or vomiting.


----------



## Boofy (Jan 25, 2015)

Nobody is saying that rotating your head 360 degrees is possible, silly. Unless they were part owl, of course, heh. Boy, is that an image! /shudder

 No, what I'm trying to say is that, when you consider that your spine supports your entire body, It's very easy to imagine being able to lift oneself. It's just one of those words, I think. I've seen it used a lot and have come to be familiar with the term. ^^

Merriam Webster uses the example, "I tried to _heave_ myself (up) out of the chair." If it's good enough for Merriam Webster, it's good enough for me :3

I'm sure we could debate it all night, haha. Thank you for your take though. I learnt more about my own views on language just by talking about it. Sometimes you just have to write things out before you know them yourself, y'know? :3


----------



## Jeko (Jan 25, 2015)

> I can *heave myself by moving myself up or down, I am indisputably the one moving myself. *



I believe you can heave your body, as the Collins dictionary believes you can heave your shoulder (it gives an example sentence containing that action). 'Heave myself' is just synonymous with that, IMO. If you say you hit yourself, it means you hit your body. So on, so forth.

I can lift myself onto something, so I can heave myself onto it too. Even if there is some sciency stuff somewhere* that says that doing that isn't actually possible, the reader gets what I mean, and that's what matters most. I always hated science anyway. 

*edit: I actually just found it, and TBH if the reader is thinking about that stuff, they aren't absorbed enough in my story, and I've failed in a much more important area of my work.


----------



## tabasco5 (Jan 25, 2015)

cinderblock said:


> Haha, thanks guys. Really liked "heaved himself up."
> 
> I have a character who's a TV repair guy, so he's constantly crouching, kneeling, and getting up. It just seemed really redundant to keep saying, "He rose back up" and "He got to his feet."



When I get in these types of situations, I try and step back and look at the story and ask myself if it's necessary to mention the same thing numerous times. In many instances the action is clear without mentioning the minute aspects.


----------



## Morkonan (Jan 25, 2015)

cinderblock said:


> The characters in the story are sauntering, brooding types. They don't "spring" or "shoot" back up lulz.
> 
> Bah I don't mind at all, heaving. I like interesting, new ways of describing things, anyway. Thank you guys.
> 
> PS: I could also say strained, I guess. Not so much struggled. They're not morbidly obese haha.



Is there anything wrong with just having them stand up? Could they have stood up? Could they be standing up?

Sometimes, you should just go ahead and hit the nail with a hammer.


----------



## cinderblock (Jan 26, 2015)

tabasco5 said:


> When I get in these types of situations, I try and step back and look at the story and ask myself if it's necessary to mention the same thing numerous times. In many instances the action is clear without mentioning the minute aspects.



Come to think of it, that's a great point. 

I guess it's because the character is getting up and kneeling back down, getting up, etc. He needs to do this because his briefcase of tools are situated away from him. I think I'll just say that he went to his briefcase and came back with the tool/returned with the tool. I'll play around with that as well. Thanks.

- - - Updated - - -



Morkonan said:


> Is there anything wrong with just having them stand up? Could they have stood up? Could they be standing up?
> 
> Sometimes, you should just go ahead and hit the nail with a hammer.




Yeah, I know. It just sounded so redundant lulz. Thanks, I think I've come up tricks just from all the feedback.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 26, 2015)

Sam said:


> It may be in other forms of literature, but that doesn't make it accurate.
> 
> You heave someone else onto your shoulder. "Heave ~ lift or haul a heavy thing".
> 
> Unless anatomy has changed drastically, you can't lift or haul yourself.



It's called a pull-up.


----------



## Sam (Jan 26, 2015)

And this just got really silly. 

A pull up is done using a bar. You can't physically lift yourself without the aid of leverage.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 26, 2015)

I was making a joke.

I get that a person can't heave themselves to their feet without some form of leverage.  If I were to use "heaved himself to his feet" I would think of that as he leaned forward, grabbed something in front of him, and used that to pull himself off of something.  I've seen some of my larger family members do such.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 26, 2015)

When the term, "he heaved himself up onto the wall" or something similar is used, it's a sort of metaphor for a full-body, effort intensive, movement.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 26, 2015)

> If it's good enough for Merriam Webster...


bloody colonials


----------



## Sam (Jan 26, 2015)

amsawtell said:


> I was making a joke.
> 
> I get that a person can't heave themselves to their feet without some form of leverage.  If I were to use "heaved himself to his feet" I would think of that as he leaned forward, grabbed something in front of him, and used that to pull himself off of something.  I've seen some of my larger family members do such.



Which is something done with the use of leverage and upper-body strength. 

I've never heard the act of standing from a prone position, without the use of leverage, called 'heave', 'heaved', or 'heaving'. 

But I think this horse is dead at this point.


----------



## Smith (Jan 26, 2015)

Sam said:


> But I think this horse is dead at this point.



*brings out defibrillator*

You can heave yourself onto a ledge (like if the character was holding onto the edge of a building for dear life). You can't be crouching or laying down and heave yourself to your feet (i.e. stand up) without leverage though, like you said.

Can you say, "He heaved himself onto the wall with his legs." ?

or

"He was heaved into stand-up?"

How about, "He heaved on the stand-up bar." ?


----------



## Ariel (Jan 26, 2015)

That last one makes me think of someone throwing up.


----------



## Smith (Jan 26, 2015)

amsawtell said:


> That last one makes me think of someone throwing up.



Lol, I was joking.


----------

