I find it frustrating that you have to click to refresh the result. Why it doesnt't autorefresh after a short period makes no sense to me. I kept typing in words and thinking it was getting no results before realising I had to keep hitting the refresh button
"very hard" -> formidable ? I don't agree because there are multiple interpretations. I would have liked multiple results, e.g., formidable, diamond-like, arduous, etc.
While I think this advise of yours should be clear to any user of a thesaurus or this site, I figured I'd share my default answer to a replacement for "very hard".
"very hard" -> "difficult"
Which is interesting because that's also an opinionated synonym for "hard", which without context has many definitions and interpretations. I'm also not even sure I think of "difficult" as being more hard than hard. I digress. Have a good evening.
I am not yet "very old" (still not 40 :), but I've been called that by much younger folk, and I even joke about being "very old" in different social settings.
It's obviously a relative term, so I would hope this isn't considered "rude" more generally.
Even objectively, if life expectancy is 75 in a region, saying that someone 70+ is "old", or someone 85+ is "very old" sounds "correct" rather than rude. Is "very young" rude as well?
Is it rude to say that someone is very short or very tall? I mean, that 6ft basketball player is very short.
Yes, some will take offence at any objective statement of fact, and some of these are cultural (tall is good, short is not; young is good, short is not), but if your point is not to denigrate, then you are not rude imho.
"So avoid using the word ‘very’ because it’s lazy. A man is not very tired, he is exhausted. Don’t use very sad, use morose. Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women - and, in that endeavor, laziness will not do. It also won’t do in your essays." -- The Dead Poets Society
Great movie but not the best advice - "morose" doesn't even mean "very sad", it means ill-tempered/in a bad mood. I wouldn't even say there is one good word that means "very sad", but "morose" is definitely not it. The site in question came up with "inconsolable", but that's hardly appropriate if you're talking about "very sad news" (after a few attempts it come back with "somber" which at least sort of works in that case, though I'd still struggle to imagine myself telling a friend that their divorce was "sombre news").
Heartbroken is a particular type of sadness though, and again, doesn't apply to non-living occurrences (like "news" or "excuses" or "movies"). You'd probably have to use "pathetic" for "excuse", but a "pathetic movie" means something quite different...
I think that's the point -- "very sad" is unpoetical because it doesn't convey anything more than "sad", which is itself a generic word. If you're writing poetry or fiction you want to be describing emotional states more interesting than "sad".
The important corollary here is that not all language needs to be poetical. It's OK to use generic language in a lot of situations. Sometimes "I'm very sorry to hear that ____" is the tool for the social situation.
I mean, the goal wasn't to sound "authentic", it was to avoid sounding "lazy" while trying to "woo women", which is the only situation considered relevant in the supposedly-inspiring speech by the maybe-a-bit-creepy professor.
Not meant to school or lecture anyone, but ‘morose’ stems from the Latin ‘mora’, meaning ‘delay', something slow. Examples from Latin.: _mora solvendi_ (delay in paying), _compensatio morae_ (compensation for the delay).
I believe that the original meaning is lost [or warped at least] when it becomes synonymous with bleak, cheerless, chill, Cimmerian, cloudy, cold, depressing...
But since it means ‘slow’ it also relates to blue, dejected, depressed, despondent, down, droopy, hangdog, inconsolable, low, melancholic[0].
And "telephone" comes from roots meaning "sound at a distance" or "far away sound". That doesn't make it right to say you heard the "telephone of laughter" when you meant to say the "distant sound of laughter" .
Sometimes you're deliberately trying to be inoffensive and formal, in which case claiming you're morose makes you look like a clown.
Compare "I was sad to hear about your grandmother" or "I was very sad..." with "I was morose..." or "I was inconsolable..." When it really matters, you need to drop the pretensions from your writing and just be normal.
I think it was Mencken that most popularly called this sort of thing sophomoric, and chastised "schoolma'ams" trying to impart conscious thought and logic into the unthinking that don't much care for what it is they're doing (e.g. writing, composing music, etc.).
I think using "very lazy" is quite fine. If you're not just simply lazy, but much more so -- yet fall short of *exceptionally* lazy: you are very lazy.
The same with very tired. If I'm exhausted, I will simply use exhausted. But if I don't feel exhausted, but simply very tired, then I feel I would be acting "puerile"[0] in trying to exaggerate my emotions to be something more than they really are. If I am exhausted, then I feel that I urgently need rest immediately; and if I'm tired, then perhaps I could do with some rest, but it can always wait; but then if I'm very tired, perhaps it means I'm somewhere between urgently needing rest and within my ability to put off rest? Some sort of in-between state? But how can that be: needing now or not needing rest now is binary -- there isn't any notable in-between there, like the cliche of "you're either pregnant or not" (but perhaps that too breaks down depending on our exactness of the definition of "pregnant." Is pregnancy determined as the exact moment the egg is fertilized or only when a woman's urine, a short time later, contains an elevated level of hCG?). In that case, then we could do away with "very tired." And if for some normal reason another person were to have different personal definitions for what they feel is their "tired" and "exhausted," then this would be reopened again, and we'd have to start again into another discussion.
I cannot find a fitting end to this carb-fueled rant. I've become self-conscious of all of the "technique" English teachers beat into me, and I really don't like it, and don't want to keep on writing. Run-on sentences: "cannot ever ever use those." Transition words: "they must be used liberally." Punctuation: "there is an agreed upon set of rules on how and when they should and shan't be used." Passive vs. active voice, prepositional placement, cliches, etc. "If you don't follow these rules and techniques, then you are simply a fool! We will learn you write good! Mark Twain's stylistic choices be damned."
I find I cannot enjoy writing, when the spectres of pedagogues long past haunt me at every sentence; and I am spending more and more time having to unlearn what was taught to me in school.
It's also important to note that this type of substitution is very context-dependent. A very tired person may be exhausted, but a very tired joke is definitely not.
This also seems to reflect the debate on agglutinative vs. isolating languages, or at least languages with more words vs. less words. One style is great for creative prose and philosophy, the other is practical for real world communication with those with varying skill levels.
See Lojban for a very practical and clear language, which only allows you to create words packed with too much meaning when you are constructing metaphors using rafsi forms.
Since we're being pedantic, I'd point out that pulchritudinous is only used for people of great physical beauty, it's not a generic replacement for beautiful.
Outside of writing an English essay, I don't see why the use of very is looked down upon. "Very good" or "very smart" is fine and is common in everyday speech.
I think this sort of perspective is becoming a bit of a meme. Not every use of longer or uncommon words is for the sake of signalling intellect or w/e. This is just such a negative, juvenile perspective to take if you are deploying it often.
I was referring to the reverse perspective of perceiving intellect, rather than signaling intellect.
It definitely happens both ways, but I think it's much more damaging to those who are perceived as being dumb, or whose ideas are not considered, because they're direct/plain.
I see this fairly often in meetings. Someone says something very direct and plain, with the root of the problem laid out, but it fails some "complexity" threshold that makes the contrived, incorrect, but fancifully worded explanation get more traction, eventually looping back around to the simple explanation, with no real acknowledgment.
I have seen almost this phenomenon: Some people are able to reduce a very complex problem and its solution down to something so simple that upon hearing it, everyone is immediately convinced of its truth. In fact, it is so self-evident and cannot be seen any other way, that you do not even feel the need to write it down. It may even be dismissed by some as being too trivial an observation to be of much help.
...And then, just a few days later, you find yourself staring at this very problem and all its immense complexity starts looking menacingly at you. Solutions? Ha! how could one possibly even hope to solve such a problem! Except, you recall that someone did. And yet, for the life of you, you wish you could remember what that solution was. Only then can you appreciate its elegance and the genius required to produce it.
Accuracy and precision is vital in communication. I agree that the speaker does have a responsibility to know his audience and shouldn't use fancy words to project intellect, education, or status. However, if there is an opportunity to be more exact, one should take it without remorse.
I would agree that accuracy is important, and sometimes technical words can help with this. But all too often people use big words just to sound intelligent and only end up obscuring their message.
Accuracy and precision is sometimes vital, but modifying words with very is frequently a good way of achieving that.
"I want a fast game", "I want a very fast game". This site suggests "rapid", "breakneck", and "dashing" as alternatives for "very fast". "Very fast" is pretty clear very precise compared to those words. Maybe I could speak about "a breakneck pace" instead, but would I have really gained anything other than showing off my vocabulary?
Speaking of very precise, it doesn't even have a suggestion for an alternative to that - though admittedly if I wasn't forcing things I would have phrased that sentence as "more precise than those words".
What does "very fast" actually convey that "fast" doesn't, unless you have a specific example of "fast" to compare with?
The idea isn't that "rapid" means "very fast" (I don't think it even necessarily means faster than "fast"). It's that people will use "very fast" when they feel that "fast" lacks the punch the sentence needs, even when they don't actually mean anything different from "fast".
You're narrowing the range of things that you're describing to not include "normal fast". This can be useful for a variety of reasons. You might be instructing people to skate extra fast this game, while avoiding implying that they usually don't meet the criteria of the word fast. You might be acknowledging that coup is a fast board game, but saying you only have time for an unusually short round of coup (even for coup) before you need to leave.
To quote the person I initially responded to
> However, if there is an opportunity to be more exact, one should take it without remorse.
That is what "very fast" commonly does over "fast". It costs next to nothing, and it specifies the meaning slightly more precisely.
---
I don't think "rapid" is really a convincing alternative to "very fast" in any case where the "very" is warranted. I liked the "breakneck" suggestion by the site a bit more, but in most contexts I don't think that it's better, just different.
I agree completely. Just don't take someones plainly worded communication with less value, only because it's plainly worded.
Of course, this all falls completely apart with groups containing a significant number of members with <language> as a second language, where plain speech is required.
One reason is because "very + <adjective>" often only vaguely approximates what the writer means. "Very good" has such a wide range of interpretations that it almost has no meaning. If I tell you I went to a "very good" restaurant, then how was my experience? Was it above average? A step beyond merely acceptable? Best restaurant ever?
Alternatively, saying that "I went to a marvelous restaurant" better indicates that my experience was exceptional.
Very works but it's missing out on an opportunity to give more detail.
Most of the adjectives in this app have multiple alternatives, one of which is likely closer to what you're trying to represent.
Or to put it another way: concepts like "smartness" are complicated and multidimensional. Someone who is "very smart" could be: good at their job, naturally intelligent, built up knowledge though experience and hard work, street-smart, smarter than average, smartest person in the world ever etc.
I wouldn't say there's always a better single word alternative to "very adjective" but it's worth thinking about when writing (and probably not worth thinking about in everyday speech!).
Nice, although a rather large group of TV viewers of The West Wing know that "unique means one of a kind, something can't be very unique"[0]. It still amazes me how some of the quotes from that show stick with me all these years later.
How about something which is being assessed on multiple dimensions?
A tee-shirt which is a distinct colour is unique.
A tee-shirt which is a distinct colour, distinct fit, distinct size and has a distinct motif could perhaps be described as being 'very unique'.
Adding a degree to uniqueness would describe the delta between it and its nearest relative. Hence, "very unique" would mean something closer to exceptional or "off-the-charts" and is a perfectly reasonable construction. I get the impression the anti-very crowd haven't actually thought too deeply on the matter
Easy way to stump it: Take the output and put it in the input. very + cute -> adorable. very adorable -> no result (may need to repeat for some words).
This study provides the first detailed account of perceptual dialectology within California (as well as one of the first accounts of perceptual dialectology within any single state). Quantitative analysis of a map-labeling task carried out in Southern California reveals that California's most salient linguistic boundary is between the northern and southern regions of the state. Whereas studies of the perceptual dialectology of the United States as a whole have focused almost exclusively on regional dialect differences, respondents associated particular regions of California less with distinctive dialects than with differences in language (English versus Spanish), slang use, and social groups. The diverse sociolinguistic situation of California is reflected in the emphasis both on highly salient social groups thought to be stereotypical of California by residents and nonresidents alike (e.g., surfers) and on groups that, though prominent in the cultural landscape of the state, remain largely unrecognized by outsiders (e.g., hicks).
[...]
By far, the most frequently remarked-upon slang term in the map-labeling data was hella, accounting for 47.4 percent of the slang and other lexical labels. Hella is a slang term originating in Northern California and one that remains—aside from a few brief moments in the national spotlight due to its circulation in popular culture— largely restricted to that region (Bucholtz 2006). The term, which apparently lexicalized from (a) hell of (a), functions as both a quantifier (There were hella people there) and an intensifier (He runs hella fast). Four respondents also mentioned the slang term hecka, the G-rated equivalent of hella, but this term was not counted separately, because tokens of hecka always co-occurred with hella. For Southern Californians in particular, hella represents a crucial shibboleth separating the two major regions of the state. As shown in Figure 7, respondents tended to identify hella overwhelmingly as a Northern California slang term, and its appearance in other regions of the map drops dramatically from north to south. Thus Northern California was variously labeled the hellas, Land of the Hella’s, and Hella capital, and one respondent provided an isogloss designating “the ‘hella’ line.” (In the map data, the Central Coast around Santa Barbara seemed to be the dividing line between users and nonusers of hella, and the fact that the study was conducted in this region may have enhanced respondents’ focus on this particular issue.) [*10: The respondent’s confusion may also be due to the existence of the Crips, a notorious Los Angeles–based gang.] Hella users were also negatively evaluated by Southern Californians, and the term came in for a good deal of criticism, such as Hella is not a real word and [hecka is] probably the worst word ever.
On one hand, I think this kind of service can help people expand their vocabularies.
On the other hand, there's a downside risk of replacing unimaginative writing with confused writing. "very + fragile -> feeble" is absolutely not a reliable translation[1]. The suggestions furnished by this service seem to generally 'work' in the sense that their possible meanings include "very + (category)," but without context you explode the set of messages you might communicate. Something that is fragile breaks easily. Something that is very fragile more so. Something that is feeble is lacking strength in general, it may give out at any time, it connotes a sense of being underweight, etc. All concepts that "very fragile" may be hoping to avoid invoking (however clumsily).
Switching words switches meanings.
[1] One might argue that 'fragile' does not need assistance at all in this case.
Regarding your [1], I think people reach for "very" for two different reasons: because they habitually "overseason" their sentences, adding intensifiers when the underlying language is already intense, or because they "underseason" them with limp adjectives that they're trying to pump up. The former people just need to build their confidence to drop "very". The latter need something like this site to help learn better adjectives.
I think my point is that these adjectives are not "better" - they are different. They mean different things, which you might also mean, but aren't good "drop in" replacements.
I wish this site would just list all the matches. If you keep clicking the button, it'll cycle (randomly!) through other substitutions.
Sparkling was also immaculate. "Demanding" was also arduous, grueling, backbreaking, and formidable.
Surely one of those would work for replacing "very hard" in a sentence? If not, then use your own imagination. "Complicated", "tedious", "rock hard", etc.
Sometimes you have no choice but to throw a "very" in there. But if you're the type to lean on that word, then it's worthwhile to explore alternatives to avoid boring writing.
I think that is actually the motivation to avoid very. It's completely true, and important to note that "very clean" =/= "sparkling". "Very" simply intensifies the word "clean". "Sparkling" doesn't simply mean intensely clean. Instead it means (in context) that it is so clean that light reflects off the surface. It has a richer meaning.
On the other hand the way the tool presents is not the most helpful. A list would be much better. Perhaps I am trying to say that I have cleaned my carpet well. I would perhaps want "spotless" or "immaculate" rather than "very clean". But I certainly wouldn't want "sparkling." That suggestion is worthless for me, and I wouldn't want to have to keep clicking to find a relevant one. (Also, what if I meant "clean" as in "clean language". I don't think any of these suggestions would be relevant).
So not my favorite tool (a thesaurus is much better), but a novel way of presenting the idea.
An issue I have with this approach is the lack of gradation.
A very clean carpet might still not be spotless nor immaculate. You'd have to adjust and go for "almost spotless", but then is it still better than using "very" ?
Forcing people to think long and hard about the exact word they want to use is beneficial, but I'd expect we'd still fall back to modulators like "very" in most cases (the same way I'm cushioning this statement to avoid going to an extreme)
> Forcing people to think long and hard about the exact word they want to use is beneficial
...except in the cases where it's not. If you want to communicate efficiently, you need to speak plainly: you will be understood and the whole process will go smoothly as you won't need to lose time to replace each 'very' in your sentence with something that might or might not fit.
I mostly disagree with your inequalities. Sure, in a literal sense, they are not equivalencies, but I think often they'd be a fine substitute. It doesn't really matter that the "very old" 200-year-old house" isn't literally "ancient". It doesn't really matter that the kitchen counter you just intensely scrubbed doesn't literally reflect light in a sparkly, flashy way. Exaggeration and hyperbole are valid rhetorical devices, and, given context, the listener or reader will understand what is meant.
Sure, "bleak" doesn't work for "very dark" when you're talking about a literal lack of light, but it would probably work when describing a certain type of film, or an awful situation. I don't think the site is trying to say "every time you want to use 'very dark', use 'bleak' instead"; it's just trying to give you alternatives that might -- but might not -- fit the usage you're looking for.
Beyond that, I do agree with the overall motive here: "very" is often a lazy intensifier, when we could be much more expressive in our speech or (especially) writing. For all its faults, the English language does offer decent breadth when it comes to synonyms of various intensity.
Yes - the site (naturally) lacks context and the "translations" lack subtlety.
But their the main point stands strongly ... take the time and devote the thought to choosing the correct word, and you'll produce better prose. Your text will be compact, precise, and more readable.
"You mean we're all being sent to a gulag tomorrow? We'll be traversing a vast nothingness for months on end starting tomorrow? We'll be witnessing horrific environmental catastrophes that nobody knows about because they're too far from civilisation tomorrow?"
"No. Sheesh, I just meant it's going to be very cold tomorrow!"
The underlying writing issue here is that people will use "very" because the sentence feels too bare and simple without it, so they add "very" (or "really", "extremely", "truly", etc.) as a way to add interest and emphasis. A good example of this is that they have "incomparable" for "very unique". "Unique" and "incomparable" are synonymous, and "very" isn't necessary here at all, but the latter word may have more punch.
You may be right, but even as a non-native speaker I know to use very for emphasis only.
The problem here is, as you can see from the fact that 100% of this thread is pointing out how badly that website works, it completely misses the mark on what it promises to do.
If I wanted synonyms I would search for synonyms, if I wanted to emphasize something then I may want to use this website. Except it's just another synonyms website.
I'll give William Allen White this - of the available text on [1], I could only find one use of "very"[2] as an emphasiser which makes him somewhat of an outlier in the prescriptivist world (following his own advice.)
Quotes don't need the potential author cited. Your advice works whoever told it, especially if you actually stand behind it and we'll take it as your word then.
Famous people say a lot of things and any random advice coming from an authoritative figure is not guaranted to be insightful. On top of that quotes are massively taken out of context and misattributed (this one probably is)
That to me makes the whole quoting one liners format useless if the quote doesn't stand on its own(except when it's used ironically?)
This is missing an important factor for writing: context. There are many places where it's fine to wax lyrical and reach for the thesaurus. But if you're trying to write clearly and concisely then there is something to be said for simplicity.
Eg. many in the tech world are not native English speakers, and this surely translates to most content to be published on the web.
While I do appreciate learning a lot more of the literary English vocabulary, I prefer to do that through well known works of fiction, and only seldomly through texts I read for my work (eg. API documentation).
When emphasising language becomes habitual, it's intended impact may actually be lessened, by way of the "boy crying wolf" effect. That is, if everything is described as "very" and "really" and "actually", then those emphasisers no longer stand out. We start to ignore them, and the collective energy spent writing them is somewhat wasted.
So I say: let a standalone word suffice, whenever possible. Save emphasis for appropriate moments.
294 comments
[ 7.4 ms ] story [ 290 ms ] threadVery + squamous = nya
Very + blue = nya
Lol
Bravo
What?
In other words, don't use this site blindly.
"very hard" -> "difficult"
Which is interesting because that's also an opinionated synonym for "hard", which without context has many definitions and interpretations. I'm also not even sure I think of "difficult" as being more hard than hard. I digress. Have a good evening.
Very true!
For example:
Very + Old = Ancient
My granda is very old vs My grandma is ancient.
It's obviously a relative term, so I would hope this isn't considered "rude" more generally.
Even objectively, if life expectancy is 75 in a region, saying that someone 70+ is "old", or someone 85+ is "very old" sounds "correct" rather than rude. Is "very young" rude as well?
Is it rude to say that someone is very short or very tall? I mean, that 6ft basketball player is very short.
Yes, some will take offence at any objective statement of fact, and some of these are cultural (tall is good, short is not; young is good, short is not), but if your point is not to denigrate, then you are not rude imho.
Not yet added! :(
The important corollary here is that not all language needs to be poetical. It's OK to use generic language in a lot of situations. Sometimes "I'm very sorry to hear that ____" is the tool for the social situation.
I believe that the original meaning is lost [or warped at least] when it becomes synonymous with bleak, cheerless, chill, Cimmerian, cloudy, cold, depressing...
But since it means ‘slow’ it also relates to blue, dejected, depressed, despondent, down, droopy, hangdog, inconsolable, low, melancholic[0].
[0]https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/morose
Compare "I was sad to hear about your grandmother" or "I was very sad..." with "I was morose..." or "I was inconsolable..." When it really matters, you need to drop the pretensions from your writing and just be normal.
I think using "very lazy" is quite fine. If you're not just simply lazy, but much more so -- yet fall short of *exceptionally* lazy: you are very lazy.
The same with very tired. If I'm exhausted, I will simply use exhausted. But if I don't feel exhausted, but simply very tired, then I feel I would be acting "puerile"[0] in trying to exaggerate my emotions to be something more than they really are. If I am exhausted, then I feel that I urgently need rest immediately; and if I'm tired, then perhaps I could do with some rest, but it can always wait; but then if I'm very tired, perhaps it means I'm somewhere between urgently needing rest and within my ability to put off rest? Some sort of in-between state? But how can that be: needing now or not needing rest now is binary -- there isn't any notable in-between there, like the cliche of "you're either pregnant or not" (but perhaps that too breaks down depending on our exactness of the definition of "pregnant." Is pregnancy determined as the exact moment the egg is fertilized or only when a woman's urine, a short time later, contains an elevated level of hCG?). In that case, then we could do away with "very tired." And if for some normal reason another person were to have different personal definitions for what they feel is their "tired" and "exhausted," then this would be reopened again, and we'd have to start again into another discussion.
I cannot find a fitting end to this carb-fueled rant. I've become self-conscious of all of the "technique" English teachers beat into me, and I really don't like it, and don't want to keep on writing. Run-on sentences: "cannot ever ever use those." Transition words: "they must be used liberally." Punctuation: "there is an agreed upon set of rules on how and when they should and shan't be used." Passive vs. active voice, prepositional placement, cliches, etc. "If you don't follow these rules and techniques, then you are simply a fool! We will learn you write good! Mark Twain's stylistic choices be damned."
I find I cannot enjoy writing, when the spectres of pedagogues long past haunt me at every sentence; and I am spending more and more time having to unlearn what was taught to me in school.
[0] ;-)
Happy. Very Happy. Ecstatic.
“Very sad” it is, then, on the technical Slack.
wow, that's some word of the year type shit. it means "beautiful" for those who were about to look it up.
Basically, what does horgous look like https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cogs.12791
Pulchritudinous [ pulchre = beautiful ]
Virile [vir = man]
Tacit [tacite = quietly]
Ossify [os = bone]
Stultify [stultus = dumb]
Puerile [puer = boy]
Amicable [amice = friendly]
See Lojban for a very practical and clear language, which only allows you to create words packed with too much meaning when you are constructing metaphors using rafsi forms.
very + tired = spent
very + sad = miserable
I'm not sure which I prefer. You are going for a more specific word, so the accuracy depends on the context.
It definitely happens both ways, but I think it's much more damaging to those who are perceived as being dumb, or whose ideas are not considered, because they're direct/plain.
I see this fairly often in meetings. Someone says something very direct and plain, with the root of the problem laid out, but it fails some "complexity" threshold that makes the contrived, incorrect, but fancifully worded explanation get more traction, eventually looping back around to the simple explanation, with no real acknowledgment.
...And then, just a few days later, you find yourself staring at this very problem and all its immense complexity starts looking menacingly at you. Solutions? Ha! how could one possibly even hope to solve such a problem! Except, you recall that someone did. And yet, for the life of you, you wish you could remember what that solution was. Only then can you appreciate its elegance and the genius required to produce it.
"I want a fast game", "I want a very fast game". This site suggests "rapid", "breakneck", and "dashing" as alternatives for "very fast". "Very fast" is pretty clear very precise compared to those words. Maybe I could speak about "a breakneck pace" instead, but would I have really gained anything other than showing off my vocabulary?
Speaking of very precise, it doesn't even have a suggestion for an alternative to that - though admittedly if I wasn't forcing things I would have phrased that sentence as "more precise than those words".
The idea isn't that "rapid" means "very fast" (I don't think it even necessarily means faster than "fast"). It's that people will use "very fast" when they feel that "fast" lacks the punch the sentence needs, even when they don't actually mean anything different from "fast".
To quote the person I initially responded to
> However, if there is an opportunity to be more exact, one should take it without remorse.
That is what "very fast" commonly does over "fast". It costs next to nothing, and it specifies the meaning slightly more precisely.
---
I don't think "rapid" is really a convincing alternative to "very fast" in any case where the "very" is warranted. I liked the "breakneck" suggestion by the site a bit more, but in most contexts I don't think that it's better, just different.
Of course, this all falls completely apart with groups containing a significant number of members with <language> as a second language, where plain speech is required.
Alternatively, saying that "I went to a marvelous restaurant" better indicates that my experience was exceptional.
Most of the adjectives in this app have multiple alternatives, one of which is likely closer to what you're trying to represent.
Or to put it another way: concepts like "smartness" are complicated and multidimensional. Someone who is "very smart" could be: good at their job, naturally intelligent, built up knowledge though experience and hard work, street-smart, smarter than average, smartest person in the world ever etc.
I wouldn't say there's always a better single word alternative to "very adjective" but it's worth thinking about when writing (and probably not worth thinking about in everyday speech!).
Nice, although a rather large group of TV viewers of The West Wing know that "unique means one of a kind, something can't be very unique"[0]. It still amazes me how some of the quotes from that show stick with me all these years later.
0) https://youtu.be/Fvb1e4-YgRE?t=162 or the whole scene https://youtu.be/Fvb1e4-YgRE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis
A tee-shirt which is a distinct colour is unique. A tee-shirt which is a distinct colour, distinct fit, distinct size and has a distinct motif could perhaps be described as being 'very unique'.
very slightly => no result
very not => no result
;(
A: Hella!!!
Q: How many Southern Californians does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Totally!!!
There's a perceptual dialectological difference between "hella pregnant" (Northern California) and "totally pregnant" (Southern California).
Hella Nor Cal or Totally So Cal? The Perceptual Dialectology of California
http://eng.sagepub.com/content/35/4/325.abstract
https://web.archive.org/web/20141008111115/https://people.du...
This study provides the first detailed account of perceptual dialectology within California (as well as one of the first accounts of perceptual dialectology within any single state). Quantitative analysis of a map-labeling task carried out in Southern California reveals that California's most salient linguistic boundary is between the northern and southern regions of the state. Whereas studies of the perceptual dialectology of the United States as a whole have focused almost exclusively on regional dialect differences, respondents associated particular regions of California less with distinctive dialects than with differences in language (English versus Spanish), slang use, and social groups. The diverse sociolinguistic situation of California is reflected in the emphasis both on highly salient social groups thought to be stereotypical of California by residents and nonresidents alike (e.g., surfers) and on groups that, though prominent in the cultural landscape of the state, remain largely unrecognized by outsiders (e.g., hicks).
[...]
By far, the most frequently remarked-upon slang term in the map-labeling data was hella, accounting for 47.4 percent of the slang and other lexical labels. Hella is a slang term originating in Northern California and one that remains—aside from a few brief moments in the national spotlight due to its circulation in popular culture— largely restricted to that region (Bucholtz 2006). The term, which apparently lexicalized from (a) hell of (a), functions as both a quantifier (There were hella people there) and an intensifier (He runs hella fast). Four respondents also mentioned the slang term hecka, the G-rated equivalent of hella, but this term was not counted separately, because tokens of hecka always co-occurred with hella. For Southern Californians in particular, hella represents a crucial shibboleth separating the two major regions of the state. As shown in Figure 7, respondents tended to identify hella overwhelmingly as a Northern California slang term, and its appearance in other regions of the map drops dramatically from north to south. Thus Northern California was variously labeled the hellas, Land of the Hella’s, and Hella capital, and one respondent provided an isogloss designating “the ‘hella’ line.” (In the map data, the Central Coast around Santa Barbara seemed to be the dividing line between users and nonusers of hella, and the fact that the study was conducted in this region may have enhanced respondents’ focus on this particular issue.) [*10: The respondent’s confusion may also be due to the existence of the Crips, a notorious Los Angeles–based gang.] Hella users were also negatively evaluated by Southern Californians, and the term came in for a good deal of criticism, such as Hella is not a real word and [hecka is] probably the worst word ever.
Isogloss:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isogloss
Hella:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hella
>Hella is an American slang te...
On the other hand, there's a downside risk of replacing unimaginative writing with confused writing. "very + fragile -> feeble" is absolutely not a reliable translation[1]. The suggestions furnished by this service seem to generally 'work' in the sense that their possible meanings include "very + (category)," but without context you explode the set of messages you might communicate. Something that is fragile breaks easily. Something that is very fragile more so. Something that is feeble is lacking strength in general, it may give out at any time, it connotes a sense of being underweight, etc. All concepts that "very fragile" may be hoping to avoid invoking (however clumsily).
Switching words switches meanings.
[1] One might argue that 'fragile' does not need assistance at all in this case.
As noted (very or not) unique and incomparable are not the same. These words have nuanced differences.
Every word I checked failed to provide the a proper equivalent. Context matters.
very hard is not always demanding
very clean =/= sparkling
very old =/= ancient
very dark =/= bleak
Sparkling was also immaculate. "Demanding" was also arduous, grueling, backbreaking, and formidable.
Surely one of those would work for replacing "very hard" in a sentence? If not, then use your own imagination. "Complicated", "tedious", "rock hard", etc.
Sometimes you have no choice but to throw a "very" in there. But if you're the type to lean on that word, then it's worthwhile to explore alternatives to avoid boring writing.
On the other hand the way the tool presents is not the most helpful. A list would be much better. Perhaps I am trying to say that I have cleaned my carpet well. I would perhaps want "spotless" or "immaculate" rather than "very clean". But I certainly wouldn't want "sparkling." That suggestion is worthless for me, and I wouldn't want to have to keep clicking to find a relevant one. (Also, what if I meant "clean" as in "clean language". I don't think any of these suggestions would be relevant).
So not my favorite tool (a thesaurus is much better), but a novel way of presenting the idea.
A very clean carpet might still not be spotless nor immaculate. You'd have to adjust and go for "almost spotless", but then is it still better than using "very" ?
Forcing people to think long and hard about the exact word they want to use is beneficial, but I'd expect we'd still fall back to modulators like "very" in most cases (the same way I'm cushioning this statement to avoid going to an extreme)
...except in the cases where it's not. If you want to communicate efficiently, you need to speak plainly: you will be understood and the whole process will go smoothly as you won't need to lose time to replace each 'very' in your sentence with something that might or might not fit.
Sure, "bleak" doesn't work for "very dark" when you're talking about a literal lack of light, but it would probably work when describing a certain type of film, or an awful situation. I don't think the site is trying to say "every time you want to use 'very dark', use 'bleak' instead"; it's just trying to give you alternatives that might -- but might not -- fit the usage you're looking for.
Beyond that, I do agree with the overall motive here: "very" is often a lazy intensifier, when we could be much more expressive in our speech or (especially) writing. For all its faults, the English language does offer decent breadth when it comes to synonyms of various intensity.
"My car is very fast" -> "My car is breakneck"
"It's going to be very cold tomorrow" -> "It's going to be Siberian tomorrow"
"Those shoes are very expensive" -> "Those shoes are lavish"
But their the main point stands strongly ... take the time and devote the thought to choosing the correct word, and you'll produce better prose. Your text will be compact, precise, and more readable.
I do really like "It's going to be Siberian tomorrow" though, I might start using that one.
"No. Sheesh, I just meant it's going to be very cold tomorrow!"
For many of them, looking into multiple dictionaries it appears that they are synonymous of the word, rather than a stronger meaning.
The problem here is, as you can see from the fact that 100% of this thread is pointing out how badly that website works, it completely misses the mark on what it promises to do.
If I wanted synonyms I would search for synonyms, if I wanted to emphasize something then I may want to use this website. Except it's just another synonyms website.
Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very'. Your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be.
[1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:William_Allen_White
[2] "It is a very important factor that he must weigh soberly ..."
Not to mention that giving people credit is always laudable and should be done much more, not less.
That to me makes the whole quoting one liners format useless if the quote doesn't stand on its own(except when it's used ironically?)
Eg. many in the tech world are not native English speakers, and this surely translates to most content to be published on the web.
While I do appreciate learning a lot more of the literary English vocabulary, I prefer to do that through well known works of fiction, and only seldomly through texts I read for my work (eg. API documentation).
So I say: let a standalone word suffice, whenever possible. Save emphasis for appropriate moments.