4 ms·

I 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 wor

I 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

function_seven 4y ago
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.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
djur 4y ago
Is the site calling for the elimination of very or just suggesting that its overuse is a common problem for writers?
sudobash1 4y ago
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.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  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)
  - hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
    > 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.
kelnos 4y ago
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.
seanhunter 4y ago
Something can only be unique or not unique. It can't be very unique given that unique means "one of a kind".
tgv 4y ago
It was a bleak and tempestuous night...

function_seven 4y ago

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.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

djur 4y ago

Is the site calling for the elimination of very or just suggesting that its overuse is a common problem for writers?

sudobash1 4y ago

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.

makeitdouble 4y ago
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)
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
  > 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.

kelnos 4y ago

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.

seanhunter 4y ago

Something can only be unique or not unique. It can't be very unique given that unique means "one of a kind".

tgv 4y ago

It was a bleak and tempestuous night...