A grammar problem

[Jeff Root]

I figured out the answer to my problem in the course of writing
this post, but decided to finish and post it anyway.


I wrote these words as the beginning of a sentence:

They had to start sitting on the ground
Unfortunately, what you think it means isn't what I intended.

People were going to climb up ropes. They all had to start the
climb in the same position: They had to start sitting on the ground
with their legs in front of them, one hand on the rope as high up
as they liked, the other hand on the ground.

I'm trying to keep the sentence short because the content is not
particularly interesting, so I want to get past it as quickly as
possible and on to the more interesting stuff. How can I reduce
or eliminate the ambiguity?


The answer I came up with changes only one word. I chose the word
used above because I want the language to sound like casual spoken
English. To remove the ambiguity, I sacrificed a little bit of the
natural feel by replacing 'sitting' with 'seated'. Can you think
of a better solution?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[kleindoofy]

"They had to start from a sitting position."

"They had to start while sitting on the ground."

"1: sit, 2: start."

etc. ;)

[steffanie]

"They had to start from a sitting position."

I like this way of saying it.

Are you writing something Jeff?

Although seated might sound better. They had to start from a seated position?

[Moose]

"They had to start while sitting on the ground."

This would be my recommendation. Retains all the nuances while clearing up the ambiguity.

[Jeff Root]

Your ideas have caused me to think on it further.

As of ten seconds ago, I now favor:

They had to start with their butts on the ground, their legs in front
of them, one hand on the rope as high up as they liked, the other
hand on the ground.
Yes, it is a story. The narrative is expressed as the main character
would think it. So it may be even more casual than speech. Thought.

Hmmmm. I wonder if Grant Hutchison thinks with the same vocabulary
he uses to write....

Don't expect to see the story anytime soon. I seem to be accustomed
to thinking in terms of astronomical and geological time scales.

Now I want to eliminate that repetitive "on the ground"....

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[kleindoofy]

with their butts on the ground
Ahh, rope climbing cheek to cheek ... ;)

[Jeff Root]

Phooey. I phorgot that I already had the word "butts" in the third
sentence of the paragraph:

They had to start sitting on the ground with their legs in front of
them, one hand on the rope as high up as they liked, the other hand
on the ground. They would start at a signal. Their butts had to be
the last part of their bodies touching the ground.
Hmph. Grumble.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Graybeard6]

Sit, one hand on rope, other on the ground. At the signal, climb,

[cosmocrazy]

I figured out the answer to my problem in the course of writing
this post, but decided to finish and post it anyway.


I wrote these words as the beginning of a sentence:

Unfortunately, what you think it means isn't what I intended.
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

I read it to mean exactly what it meant which was explained in the next part of the sentence. I did not see it any other way until i continued on and read further in the thread, then it dawned on me what it was all about.:doh:

Some times it can be useful to not give away too much detail early on, good writers try to create a picture in the readers mind, and its sometimes a useful trick to lead you down the wrong path in order to put a twist in the drama. Not that this applies in this particular case, but sometimes a picture is created too fast by trying to cram detail into one sentence.
I know this may sound a load of baloney but i understand what i'm talking about!:lol:

[Gillianren]

Personally, "start while" or "start by" would be my choices.

[megrfl]

They had to start sitting on the ground with their legs in front of
them, one hand on the rope as high up as they liked, the other hand
on the ground. They would start at a signal. Their butts had to be
the last part of their bodies touching the ground.

A little reconstruction gives you this...

Their butts had to be the last part of their bodies touching the ground. They began by sitting on the ground with their legs stretched out in front of them, one hand on the rope as far up as they liked, the other hand on the ground. They would begin on signal.

megr

[Neverfly]

A little reconstruction gives you this...

Their butts had to be the last part of their bodies touching the ground. They began by sitting on the ground with their legs stretched out in front of them, one hand on the rope as far up as they liked, the other hand on the ground. They would begin on signal.

megr

Do you get more points if you use less words?
Sit, one hand on rope, other on the ground. At the signal, climb,

[megrfl]

Score!!

[kleindoofy]

Their butts had to be the last part of their bodies touching the ground.
Ok:

And every participant had to be sure that his sweet little tuchas was the last part of his body to leave the ground.

;)

[Cookie]

How about this?:

"People were going to climb up ropes. They all had to start the climb in the same position. While sitting on the ground with their legs in front of them, they could place one hand on the rope as high up as they liked. However, their other hand had to be on the ground."

It's a little wordy, but I think it gets the point across.
You could replace the bolded word could with "were instructed to"

[RalofTyr]

People were going to climb up ropes. They all had to start the
climb in the same position: They had to start sitting on the ground
with their legs in front of them, one hand on the rope as high up
as they liked, the other hand on the ground.

Shakespeare would have said,

Ye knaves prepared for their heavenly ascent, with their rumps on terrafirma.