Man or Men?

[BWFoster78]

I keep running into situations where I want to say that there are two guards, one on each side of a wall, door, gate, whathaveyou.

A guard stood on each side of the gate.

Sounds like there's one guy split in half...

Guards stood on each side of the gate.

Sound like there's more than one on each side.

I'm probably making this more difficult than it needs to be, but, hey, that's kinda my thing. How do you handle this?

 

[Spider]

I believe it would be "A guard stood on each side of the gate."

 

[BWFoster78]

I believe it would be "A guard stood on each side of the gate."

I get that "Guards" doesn't work. I think I was more wondering if there's a better way...

 

[A. E. Lowan]

How's this?

"A guard stood on either side of the gate."

 

[druidofwinter]

"There was a guard on each side of the gate"

Any good?

 

[Svrtnsse]

There were two guards by the gate, one on each side.
A pair of guards stood sentry at the gate, guarding it from both sides.
A pair of guards kept watch at the gate, one out front and one the other side.
On each side of the gate a guard was positioned.
Two guards were at the gate, on on the left and one on the right.

 

[Ireth]

"A pair of guards flanked the gate", perhaps?

 

[Penpilot]

"A pair of guards flanked the gate", perhaps?

I like this one, but the original works fine in my mind.

Or you could try something that makes the guards more distinct.

On the gate's left stood a tall guard and on the right a short one.

 

[Devor]

"A guard stood on either side of the gate."

That's what I was about to type. You could write a better sentence, sure, but I usually try to give advice for fixing things while changing as little as possible - which is this.

 

[BWFoster78]

How's this?

"A guard stood on either side of the gate."

It still kinda sounds like one dude is standing on both sides of the gate.

 

[BWFoster78]

"There was a guard on each side of the gate"

Any good?

I do realize that I'm a little ridiculous here, but I hate using "was" unless absolutely necessary.

 

[BWFoster78]

A pair of guards stood sentry at the gate, guarding it from both sides.

I like this, perhaps changing it to:

A pair of guards stood sentry at the gate, one on each side.

to avoid using the same word twice.

 

[BWFoster78]

"A pair of guards flanked the gate", perhaps?

That's nice and succinct. I like it.

 

[BWFoster78]

On the gate's left stood a tall guard and on the right a short one.

I like this idea, too, especially to vary it since the situation occurs more than once.

 

[wordwalker]

Just "Two guards stood at the gate." I don't think whether they're quite in front of it or not is that important, even for getting the split-second image-- the real question is are they hostile enough to move/stay that one step that's in your way or to get/stay aside, and that's seen more in attitude than location.

 

[Butterfly]

Or lose the stood... A guard on either side of the gate.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Or lose the stood... A guard on either side of the gate.

I like it. Cut out some info and then fit it in later:
There were guards at the gate. One seemed tired and the other was fast asleep.
The two guards at the gate looked scruffy and unshaven but seemed otherwise capable.
At this gate there were two guards.
The gate was guarded.

 

[Butterfly]

But thinking about it another way... guards don't stand, per se. They are posted, stationed, etc.

Guards posted to each side of the gate.

Guards staioned at the gates...

 

[PaulineMRoss]

Guys, you do realise that only one reader in a thousand is even going to notice this, let alone stop to wonder about it?

On the other hand, I love that you spend time discussing this level of detail.

 

[Svrtnsse]

It's not just about the reader.