very + creepy = creepy
lol
Replace the “very” in your sentence
91–100 of 295 posts
Re: Replace the “very” in your sentence
#92From the random picker: very + complex = your mom
[Grin]
Also: very + happy = jubilant very + jubilant = not yet added
Re: Replace the “very” in your sentence
#93Don’t lose the «very» in your daily speak. Language should first and foremost be accessible to others, not exquisite. Unless you’re writing a novel, and unless the accuracy of the more elegant substitute word you’d use really matters.
Re: Replace the “very” in your sentence
#94very + very =
Re: Replace the “very” in your sentence
#95Begs the question where should I use my "very" then?
Only as an adjective "that was the very spot I left it". /s
Re: Replace the “very” in your sentence
#96Thank you much!
Re: Replace the “very” in your sentence
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Devastated.
Sure, but you wouldn't use that to describe someone who's been very sad for many years and not due to any one particular event.
Re: Replace the “very” in your sentence
#98I ran a few words through and I am not willing to buy into the elimination of very. 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
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.
Re: Replace the “very” in your sentence
#99[deleted]
Re: Replace the “very” in your sentence
#100"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
Now that, ladies, was a very good movie.