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.
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!).
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.
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 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.
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.
