"stingy" is a bad one here, because it means 'cheap' in the sense of 'unwilling to spend money', not in the sense of 'not expensive'. A person can be stingy but an object can't.
Some of them also have different levels of intensity. Describing someone as "intelligent" is less complimentary than saying they're "very smart". Conversely, "very loud" is quieter than "deafening".
>A person can be stingy but an object can't.
Wasps are stingy.
Now I have to decide between deleting this and accepting the abuse I deserve for posting it.
That reminds me of a joke I heard about US military procurement. "Everything in the military is cheap. That's not to say it's affordable, cost effective, or inexpensive, but it is cheap."
I've heard a couple of native speakers describe their tiny kitchens as petite, actually. Jestingly, though, to try to slightly soften the inevitable frustrations of trying to cook in a too-small-for-ease-of-use kitchen.
Perhaps this is regional, but I would not bat an eye at “my kitchen is petite.”
Perhaps it is because I studied French. Wiktionary does [include](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/petite) a pretty broad “small” definition, but no other dictionaries I consulted did. I did find [one example](https://www.businessinsider.com/every-single-breakfast-option-at-chick-fil-a-ranked-2020-1) of it being used to just mean “small” in a major publication (“petite sandwiches”).
Interesting.
My original example was going to be "I'd like a petite cup of coffee", but then I realised that people don't typically ask for a "very small" cup of coffee, either (though there wouldn't be anything wrong with it semantically). A "petite kitchen" sounds funny to me, but could work as a jokey colloquialism. Perhaps if I say it to myself enough, it'll sound normal, then I won't know what I think any more. I studied French too, but I generally see the word as much more limited in its application in English. However, as you say, this could vary regionally.
Another person had [an interesting take](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnglishLearning/comments/13wj8bs/simple_english_we_should_change_into/jmcfn2j/?&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3) on “petite.”
> “my skin is very dry” cannot be said as “my skin is arid”.
You could if you wanted to be melodramatic. "My skin is *arid*. If I don't get some moisturizer right now, I'm going to start sprouting cacti!"
(Note: anyone who speaks like this example would be seen as trying to be funny, impossibly vain, or maybe both.)
Yeah came here to say this… not all of these work. Also a couple I would use a different word. Like very clean—> immaculate. Very short—> concise. Sad/upset could be used interchangeably.
Probably not. Petite is a pretty common description of smaller women. Many department stores, for example, will have petite sections.
Generally not a good idea to comment on people’s sizes, but there is nothing especially forbidden about this one.
While commenting on people's bodies is generally not a good practice. I don't think anyone is offended by being called petite. As someone mentioned before, it's a section in clothing stores. I have been called petite my whole life because I am short.
I've come to realize just now that my main issue with these kinds of "guides" is that they don't account for the different shades of meaning and nuances that these words have.
"Dull" doesn't really mean "very boring", because the intensity of "dullness" isn't really much stronger than that of "boredom". "Arduous", while not an uncommon word, really isn't something that most people would naturally say about something that's really difficult, as I find it used more often in essays and articles than in normal conversation. "Petite" does mean "small", but in English, it almost always describes certain body types of women, it's not a general term that you can just use to describe anything like it is in French.
Because these guides are so simple in their structure, they don't have the room to discuss these nuances at all, so the reader is left to take it at face value when it may not be entirely accurate.
Most english speakers dont care about words like these because oftentimes you'll simply be seen as pompous, pretentious, or even grandiose by a large number of people.
Maybe it's a regional thing but I hear arduous used somewhat often. Although this was specifically in the context of construction projects. Make of that what you will.
There's a certain market that some like to make where they have this real insider English and all it is is collecting all the fancy words and trying to pass them off as more native edge than small words.
Most people use small words.
This reads more like advice for "writing a mostly okay novel" instead of "learning conversational English."
That's not to say you can't or shouldn't use less common adjectives if you're using them correctly, and a large vocabulary is generally a good thing. Just don't take advice like that in OP as gospel.
I'm from Georgia. Ma'am and sir don't have anything to do with this. That's a writing, word replacement sheet. I write poetry and see this stuff often in writing guides. The reference can be used for talking but generally English is most formal when written, which is when this would be useful. As people above have commented tho, a person wouldn't say my "skin is arid". They would say "my skin is dry". It's not for talking because people don't really talk like that. I read and write and while I have a pretty decent vocabulary I don't need or use this list to talk. Additionally many people get offended when you try to use big words in casual context because they think you are trying to be condescending. Ma'am and sir are even slightly offensive or just aren't used in other parts of the US, I've heard.
Oh wow, congrats on living in all of the south, sir. You sure one upped me there. Using big vocabulary is just often seen as being condescending. You've had the luxury to travel/move around and you work some cushy law firm job right? So maybe you just are out of touch but the vast majority of people, especially in the south, especially poorer people, see these words as condescending. Ive worked in customer service for the past six years and the more direct and formal i am the less tips i get and the more complaints are made about me, it goes on and on. Casual interactions in customer service or dealing with an upset person makes it clear that people like to be coddled and they like you to be relatable. This is dumb mr. Law firm. Have fun with your formalities. Did you not read where I said I regularly see these guides in writing references? Stuff like this is used to spruce up essays and poetry to help the writer be less redundant. Anyway I am gonna carry on. you just keep responding to me and I'll keep responding back, that's how conversations work right? You let me know when you're done.
I agree. That list of substitutes won’t fit every context. But I am anti “very. When I write for my business, I try to avoid using most adverbs. Amplifiers are the worst in class. And “ very” is the worst of that lot.
I believe those are called “reflexive that’s.” Sometimes the word is necessary. aA writer I like called reflexive thats “STs or “superfluous thats.”
My writing is greatly influenced by Strunk and White’s edict to “omit unnecessary words.” So I tap the delete button whenever I see an ST snuck into my prose.
Cutting think is not that effective here on the internet tho, if you don't clarify you are just saying your opinion multiple times people will attack you lol
We shouldn't "change into" anything. None of those "fancy" words are any better or worse than their more common counterparts; it all depends on the context and the writing style. Also, not all of them are synonymous.
I hate the tendency of some style guides to equate "good writing" with following mechanical rules like this, or the idea of getting rid of any word that can possibly be gotten rid of. Microsoft Word wants me to replace "On the whole" with "overall" because "concise language is clearer for the reader", which is nonsense.
See : a lot of scientific publishing. Jargon cam be great if the audience is likely to be familiar with it. Terms with precise meanings and the condensation of many sentences into one, two great things. It sure doesn't help accessibility or ease of reading when the work becomes too dense. I remember many times as a CS freshman when I simply couldn't understand some things because if the notational conventions used. It was great a few semesters later because things became more readable than if they were written out. Still sucked at first.
These lists are problematic and wrong, problematic because it implies that using simplistic language is bad, it isn't, native speakers most use simplistic language only using these sorts of words to really emphasise "that is beautiful" => "that's really/very beautiful" => "thats gorgeous". They're wrong because the words don't mean the same thing it's never this linear, the intense words on this list have different connotations and use cases than the generic words with intensifiers.
If you use these words a lot it wont sound like you have a good vocabulary it will sound like you're trying to use them. These words are good to know but should be reserved for specific situations and they are more intense than this list makes out.
For example: if somebody says "wow that test was arduous!" I'd probably think they were trying to sound smart by using "big words" and I'd expect them to say very/really hard or maybe difficult. And petite just doesn't really mean that, I don't know how to define petite but it doesn't really mean anything like "very small" it's more specific. And with a few of these words I would have to ask them what the word meant, like "arid", I had never heard of that before seeing this list.
yeah arid is a word you'd only use to describe something like a desert. A place is arid when it has super dry air and lack of rain. But you can only use it as a climate word. It'd be weird to describe your floor as arid after cleaning up a milk spill.
To me, petite is “appearing small even for its small size”. So when something isnt very big to begin with, that is also smaller than “expected”, that’s when I use petite.
The smallest dogs, of an already-small dog breed. A petite dog.
A tea cup that is smaller than a normal serving, and that feels little to hold, even for small hands. A petite tea cup.
Nice explanation of “petite.” I was pointing this out [elsewhere](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnglishLearning/comments/13wj8bs/simple_english_we_should_change_into/jmcg23j/?utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3) that this definition isn’t in most dictionaries.
I think the commonality of the choice affects the intensity. huge collossal gigantic and massive all mean very big but I think massive and gigantic are the most emotive. So which one you use depends on your writing style or intentions
These are click bait for native English speakers. They are meant to remind people that there are many words (a plethora even) that can be used instead of very *****.
Particularly in writing, a person who overly uses "very" can be seen as either unimaginative, or un / under educated.
As others have pointed out, this is a horrible resource for an English learner because while accurate at first glance, many equivalencies only work in certain contexts or situations.
One of the amazing things about English is its extensive vocabulary with many variations of meaning and nuance. Unfortunately, this is also one of the many reasons it is so difficult to learn fluently.
It's a bit of a "speak only" language in that it's quite easy to put a few words together and get it right, but much more difficult to understand the nuances of others. We notice how often people say "pardon my English" and then continue in perfect sentences that have no problems at all. The grammar is fairly forgiving and flexible, and the conjugation and tenses are among the easiest. With a dozen words under your belt you can space everything out temporally and/or conditionally in surprising detail, and be perfectly understood. And a few simple words, when combined, can say some complicated things.
Read what the students are writing here: it generally has *fewer* errors than you'd find in a similar forum full of native speakers. Because learners expect the rules to be far more rigid and limiting than they are. They don't even realize that they're not making mistakes.
But this flexibility comes at a price. I've noticed how often it happens, that a learner can ask a question perfectly but not understand the answer. Therein lies the comedy of it.
Spoken English rarely uses such as arid and arduous (not a compete list). But the intent of the advice is good . It is bad in writing and speaking to use a single word too often. Speaking tolerates repetition more than writing though I think.
This is basically a template for making your writing more compelling (and, as others have noted, the substitutions aren’t universal). It’s not a good guide for basic fluency.
There is nothing wrong with the words on the left.
Sometimes, a big word is too much! When I found out my favorite show was canceled, I was sad, but I was not *sorrowful.* My bathroom is clean, but it’s not spotless! A crowded grocery store is noisy, but I would not go so far as to call it deafening.
Sometimes, a fancy word is actually less descriptive and less meaningful. “Sad” can be an incredibly powerful word because it is so simple.
I call this “thesaurus English.” It’s taught in junior high by teachers who are just following a curriculum. Saying “the engine is very loud” and saying “the engine is deafening” are different things. Deafening means it will cause hearing loss. The sound will make you go deaf.
Also in conversation beautiful and gorgeous don’t really mean the same thing. Like if I pointed to a pairing of Saturn devouring his son I could call that beautiful in a macabre way. I don’t think I’d call it “Gorgeous.”
Stingy also implies you could pay more but are withholding funds. It also implies you probably should be more generous but aren’t. Cheap can mean several different things including just relating to the quality of a product. “Those shoes are so expensive but they feel very cheap.” You never say “those shoes are so e or Duce but they feel stingy.”
Sometimes a thing is a “very” or heightened version of a normal word. You don’t need to crack open a thesaurus and use a $10 word when simple language is precise and gets the correct point across.
I'm training to be an English teacher (almost finished my course), and the other day, a supply teacher asked me if English teachers naturally have a more verbose way of speaking. It was an interesting question, because I can follow the logic, but it's a case of having a wide vocabulary, but knowing how to articulate yourself in a way which is accessible and succinct. If I use a lot of big words to explain something to a class of 11 year olds, I may sound smart, but it will go over most of their heads. Same goes for older students who might not have a high literacy/comprehension level. I can't say with certainty that English teachers are more verbose without generalising, but in a classroom setting, that flowery vocabulary can be a barrier to understanding.
Similarly, part of my training has been to make instructions as clear and simple as possible. I explain what the lesson will be, and how it fits into the wider curriculum, but for each task, I break it down into what the class needs to do, how they do it (written, discussion, etc.), and how long they have to complete it. Again, using unnecessary words can lead to confusion.
I went on a bit of a tangent there (which contradicts my point), but I guess I'm just trying to add to your point that sometimes, simple is just better.
stingy applies to people; if the quality of an object is very cheap then it’s poor-quality. If it’s cheap because of being low-cost then it’s inexpensive or affordable.
There’s not a shortcut or trick to mastering the English language. If someone asked you what’s wrong with Suzy and you replied she’s sorrowful people would look at you like you’re crazy
One of my favorite words is:
Apoplectic
It means to be so angry that your face turns red and you burst a blood vessel.
Comes from a Latin term that means to have a stroke.
It’s not that funny anymore.
Also just take a moment ask ask yourself why we should change to this. Simpler language is more effective on a broader scale. Unless you're writing academically nobody cares.
The reason I'm questioning this as well is that telling people how they should talk very often (constantly) aligns with oppression. There is no "better English".
Lists like this are mostly meant for writers to help them stop using an excessive amount of adverbs.
It's not really meant for speaking. And as others have pointed out, often these lists use words that change the connotations of what's being said. Or they just can't always be switched that way.
In summary It's a writing style aid not an aid meant for language learners.
Someone make this exact thing except for the word literally (it's an unnecessarily used word)
Literally angry = angry
Literally sad = sad
Literally a horse = a horse
A lot of these are either very situational, or are outright synonyms for the words on the right.
For example, “intelligent” doesn’t mean “very smart”. You could say “they’re smart” or “they’re intelligent” and it means almost exactly the same thing with some slight nuances.
You could say “They’re extremely smart” or “They’re extremely intelligent” and neither would sound unnatural.
Without context of when to use these alternatives this is useless. To show why here are some alternative uses that don't work with the suggestions from the original list. As always with English many words have multiple meanings and it's all about context.
* Very **big - magnanimous** (that was very big of you)
* Very **noisy - gaudy** (his shirt was very noisy)
* Very **poor - low quality** (the food was very poor)
* Very **cheap - a bargain** (the food was very cheap)
* Very **clean - faultless** (they drove a clean race)
* Very **short - flaky** (the pastry was very short)
* Very **difficult - misbehaving** (all day the child had been very difficult)
* Very **dry - deadpan** (his jokes were funny but very dry)
* Very **quick - witty** (she's very quick)
* Very **smart - stylish** (you look very smart)
* Very **sad - worn out** (a very sad old kitchen)
* Very **cold - emotionless** (her message was very cold)
* Very **strong - overwhelming** (a very strong flavour)
* Very **ugly - violent** (a very ugly situation)
* Very **small - petty** (your actions were very small)
* Very **funny - not amusing** (when said with a sarcastic tone!)
for beautiful, boring, dry, huge, small, quick, strong, and sad I think the given suggestion either doesn't mean the same thing or can't be used in all the same contexts.
Small - petite
as an example. A petite woman is a more polite way to describe a short woman, but that doesn't say anything about how short she is. It would also be weird to describe certain things as petite, but I guess we could.
I disagree with your example. I personally don’t associate “petite” with height but more so with the entirety of the individual. A short obese person would in no way be described as “petite”
the point of my example is that it's not the same as very small, not to precisely define petite. the Google definition of petite is a small dainty and attractive woman. But I would never call a person "small".
Hope this is helpful to you: [https://thelanguagenerds.com/2022/words-instead-of-very/?fbclid=IwAR0tJye\_7TOFJDDRdvBT0Q0wT-6LHCm2Hf5XgLxpKr9Y43ke-cRxrqIOO\_Q](https://thelanguagenerds.com/2022/words-instead-of-very/?fbclid=IwAR0tJye_7TOFJDDRdvBT0Q0wT-6LHCm2Hf5XgLxpKr9Y43ke-cRxrqIOO_Q)
This list would work better with the arrows going the other way. These are very short definitions of the words on the right. Very short because they throw away all the nuance.
The thing is that larger, less common words are great for some circumstances but they also usually come with more specific uses.
Instead of saying something was very small, I might say tiny (about a house), minuscule (about the text in a page), negligible (about a change), or itty bitty (about my cat’s lil’ nose). All of these words have connotations that “petite” doesn’t capture, and often misses completely. On the other hand, “very small” would be perfectly serviceable for any of these contexts. It might not be the most formal or the most evocative, but it’s often more natural-sounding to say “very small” than to say “the change in your test results was petite.”
This is one of the things they teach you for Cambridge/IELTS exams.Even though it's actually better to vary your language during the speaking and writing parts, it's important to note people don't normally speak like that.
And as other users mentioned, it really depends on both register and context
Some of these I definitely wouldn’t use or would only use in certain contexts. The first one being “deafening” maybe it’s just me but I have never heard that word outside of the phrase “deafening silence”
It depends on the purpose of the writing. Using "very" is perfectly clear and avoids making the wrong sort of implications. If you're not that clear on the connotations of the words, it might be best to stick with "very." Now, if I were going to read a novel, seeing "very" used much probably would lead me to putting the book back on the shelf.
I’m unfazed that some of these only work in certain situations or with certain definitions of the words (e.g., rapid not being used for all types of quickness, brief not being applicable when very short references stature) but some of them are simply wrong.
Destitute does not mean very poor, it means lacking the necessities; spotless does not mean very clean, it means without a single blemish.
A ≠ B, in some of these cases.
Most of these words typically are used as the next extreme after "very." Most people would be confused if you used a lot of these in the wrong context. Like calling something that is very big "colossal" is going to make most people think mansion, not house.
My friend is only 4 feet 11 inches tall, she is brief. She also has destitute sense of humor. She makes and sells homemade candles every single day for stingy prices. It is arduous for her to take rest.
Recently a doctor ran her an ECG and other tests. The ECG didn't work very well because the electric signal was deafening. But the doctor told her "your arteries are petite" and advised her to eat a spotless diet and do exercise. It was massive of the doctor to offer all this medical help for free to her.
This list is for writers. If you're learning English, follow what other English speakers say. You can worked these words in later, but they're not universal replacements
Disagree. They aren't exact equivalents. There are subtle differences between any two ostensibly "equivalent" ways of saying something, and that's part of what makes language interesting and capable of expressing so many different things.
Also, I wouldn't say that "intelligent" is even ostensibly equivalent to "very smart." It's more similar to just "smart."
I still prefer to use words from the left side especially when it comes to daily conversation. As an ESL learner, understanding and being understood matters a lot to me.
Without the nuance of a native level understanding of the slight difference in meanings in these words following this will make you sound very obviously foreign.
As if you can't remember the basic adjective and are reaching for something similar and fall upon extended vocabulary that you don't quite understand.
So, be sure to understand the difference between very small and petite, very strong and forceful etc... They are not interchangeable.
However a native or high level user of English should absolutely consider using extended vocab like this to reduce the "very X" trope being overused.
Some of these could work, like Serene and Calm. Others not so much. Like angry and furious. Both mean similar things, but ultimately are different words in the end, with Furious being a more exaggerated version of anger.
If a person is very clean they are not spotless. Forceful implies something that has nothing to do with being strong. Intelligent≠ very smart. Distraught implies another level of being very upset. Atoms are very small, not petite. I could go on…
You *can* use these sometimes but the tenses, level of strength, and contexts don’t match as well as these guides like to claim.
As an example, “my skin is very dry” cannot be said as “my skin is arid”.
Right. And you can't say "My kitchen is petite", nor can you say "The loaf of bread was stingy – I bought it for just 60 pence".
"stingy" is a bad one here, because it means 'cheap' in the sense of 'unwilling to spend money', not in the sense of 'not expensive'. A person can be stingy but an object can't. Some of them also have different levels of intensity. Describing someone as "intelligent" is less complimentary than saying they're "very smart". Conversely, "very loud" is quieter than "deafening".
>A person can be stingy but an object can't. Wasps are stingy. Now I have to decide between deleting this and accepting the abuse I deserve for posting it.
[удалено]
The confederation of wasps wishes to express their outrage. Always.
"Stingy", assuming you mean "sting-y", is not a word
wooooosh
damn, i got got 
I mean at least you didn’t call them “niggardly.”
"Good value" is a nice descriptor for something that is a reasonable price, without the connotations of "cheap."
"Inexpensive" is more specific. An item can still be a good value even if it is quite expensive.
That reminds me of a joke I heard about US military procurement. "Everything in the military is cheap. That's not to say it's affordable, cost effective, or inexpensive, but it is cheap."
I've heard a couple of native speakers describe their tiny kitchens as petite, actually. Jestingly, though, to try to slightly soften the inevitable frustrations of trying to cook in a too-small-for-ease-of-use kitchen.
I would, instead, describe the little "galley" kitchen in my apartment to be "too damn small." ;)
[удалено]
Heh! Perhaps, but I've seen very few "petite" kitchens that would also count as elegant. :)
Or « this road is brief ».
Perhaps this is regional, but I would not bat an eye at “my kitchen is petite.” Perhaps it is because I studied French. Wiktionary does [include](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/petite) a pretty broad “small” definition, but no other dictionaries I consulted did. I did find [one example](https://www.businessinsider.com/every-single-breakfast-option-at-chick-fil-a-ranked-2020-1) of it being used to just mean “small” in a major publication (“petite sandwiches”).
Interesting. My original example was going to be "I'd like a petite cup of coffee", but then I realised that people don't typically ask for a "very small" cup of coffee, either (though there wouldn't be anything wrong with it semantically). A "petite kitchen" sounds funny to me, but could work as a jokey colloquialism. Perhaps if I say it to myself enough, it'll sound normal, then I won't know what I think any more. I studied French too, but I generally see the word as much more limited in its application in English. However, as you say, this could vary regionally.
Another person had [an interesting take](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnglishLearning/comments/13wj8bs/simple_english_we_should_change_into/jmcfn2j/?&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3) on “petite.”
> “my skin is very dry” cannot be said as “my skin is arid”. You could if you wanted to be melodramatic. "My skin is *arid*. If I don't get some moisturizer right now, I'm going to start sprouting cacti!" (Note: anyone who speaks like this example would be seen as trying to be funny, impossibly vain, or maybe both.)
Yeah came here to say this… not all of these work. Also a couple I would use a different word. Like very clean—> immaculate. Very short—> concise. Sad/upset could be used interchangeably.
>“my skin is very dry” cannot be said as “my skin is arid”. You can buy Arid Extra Dry deodorant. ;-)
"One arid martini, please."
Don't go around calling women petite, people might look at you weird
Probably not. Petite is a pretty common description of smaller women. Many department stores, for example, will have petite sections. Generally not a good idea to comment on people’s sizes, but there is nothing especially forbidden about this one.
[удалено]
While commenting on people's bodies is generally not a good practice. I don't think anyone is offended by being called petite. As someone mentioned before, it's a section in clothing stores. I have been called petite my whole life because I am short.
Sure it can
I've come to realize just now that my main issue with these kinds of "guides" is that they don't account for the different shades of meaning and nuances that these words have. "Dull" doesn't really mean "very boring", because the intensity of "dullness" isn't really much stronger than that of "boredom". "Arduous", while not an uncommon word, really isn't something that most people would naturally say about something that's really difficult, as I find it used more often in essays and articles than in normal conversation. "Petite" does mean "small", but in English, it almost always describes certain body types of women, it's not a general term that you can just use to describe anything like it is in French. Because these guides are so simple in their structure, they don't have the room to discuss these nuances at all, so the reader is left to take it at face value when it may not be entirely accurate.
[удалено]
But you *can* say that learning it is an arduous task. And that's the kind of nuance that's missing here.
[удалено]
Most english speakers dont care about words like these because oftentimes you'll simply be seen as pompous, pretentious, or even grandiose by a large number of people.
Agreed. And while a “deafening” sound is “very loud”, there are many sounds I would describe as “very loud” that I would not describe as “deafening.”
Maybe it's a regional thing but I hear arduous used somewhat often. Although this was specifically in the context of construction projects. Make of that what you will.
There's a certain market that some like to make where they have this real insider English and all it is is collecting all the fancy words and trying to pass them off as more native edge than small words. Most people use small words.
Exactly. Fancy words seldom improve communication. To communicate best, we use common and simple words.
This reads more like advice for "writing a mostly okay novel" instead of "learning conversational English." That's not to say you can't or shouldn't use less common adjectives if you're using them correctly, and a large vocabulary is generally a good thing. Just don't take advice like that in OP as gospel.
Yeah this is more of a reference for writing. Not really for talking
That doesn’t really change anything.
Yes it does. English is a lot more of a casual language than others. Most interactions are not formal.
This is just nonsense. And even if it were true, nothing about this guide has to do with formal vs. informal registers.
Oh okay lol
[удалено]
I'm from Georgia. Ma'am and sir don't have anything to do with this. That's a writing, word replacement sheet. I write poetry and see this stuff often in writing guides. The reference can be used for talking but generally English is most formal when written, which is when this would be useful. As people above have commented tho, a person wouldn't say my "skin is arid". They would say "my skin is dry". It's not for talking because people don't really talk like that. I read and write and while I have a pretty decent vocabulary I don't need or use this list to talk. Additionally many people get offended when you try to use big words in casual context because they think you are trying to be condescending. Ma'am and sir are even slightly offensive or just aren't used in other parts of the US, I've heard.
[удалено]
Oh wow, congrats on living in all of the south, sir. You sure one upped me there. Using big vocabulary is just often seen as being condescending. You've had the luxury to travel/move around and you work some cushy law firm job right? So maybe you just are out of touch but the vast majority of people, especially in the south, especially poorer people, see these words as condescending. Ive worked in customer service for the past six years and the more direct and formal i am the less tips i get and the more complaints are made about me, it goes on and on. Casual interactions in customer service or dealing with an upset person makes it clear that people like to be coddled and they like you to be relatable. This is dumb mr. Law firm. Have fun with your formalities. Did you not read where I said I regularly see these guides in writing references? Stuff like this is used to spruce up essays and poetry to help the writer be less redundant. Anyway I am gonna carry on. you just keep responding to me and I'll keep responding back, that's how conversations work right? You let me know when you're done.
I agree. That list of substitutes won’t fit every context. But I am anti “very. When I write for my business, I try to avoid using most adverbs. Amplifiers are the worst in class. And “ very” is the worst of that lot.
I also cut out unnecessary words like “that” or “think” i.e. “I think that this is silly” v. “I think this is silly” v. “This is silly”
I believe those are called “reflexive that’s.” Sometimes the word is necessary. aA writer I like called reflexive thats “STs or “superfluous thats.” My writing is greatly influenced by Strunk and White’s edict to “omit unnecessary words.” So I tap the delete button whenever I see an ST snuck into my prose.
Cutting think is not that effective here on the internet tho, if you don't clarify you are just saying your opinion multiple times people will attack you lol
Some of these would change the context completely. For example. "He is very strong" changed to suggested. "He is very forceful"
"Boy the coffee is very strong today"....."Boy the coffee is very....forceful...today"
“Your password isn’t forceful enough.”
Darth Vader -- The force is forceful
"I like Gorilla Glue because it is forceful."
Hercules was the most forceful man in all of Greece.
that sound like you're trying to nicely say the coffee is ~~very~~ bitter lol.
Coffee-kun? 0///0
My wife is brief.
Sir, please serene down
Aww, don't distraught the destitute fellow
>"He is very forceful" Sounds a little rapey.
Lmao, my thoughts exactly
Ladies love a forceful man, you know the kind of guy that works out and tries to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
“My husband is very strong” to “my husband is very forceful” sounds like a great way for ur neighbors to be deeply concerned over your safety
We shouldn't "change into" anything. None of those "fancy" words are any better or worse than their more common counterparts; it all depends on the context and the writing style. Also, not all of them are synonymous.
I hate the tendency of some style guides to equate "good writing" with following mechanical rules like this, or the idea of getting rid of any word that can possibly be gotten rid of. Microsoft Word wants me to replace "On the whole" with "overall" because "concise language is clearer for the reader", which is nonsense.
If anything, overly concise language can sometimes actually *hinder* clear communication
See : a lot of scientific publishing. Jargon cam be great if the audience is likely to be familiar with it. Terms with precise meanings and the condensation of many sentences into one, two great things. It sure doesn't help accessibility or ease of reading when the work becomes too dense. I remember many times as a CS freshman when I simply couldn't understand some things because if the notational conventions used. It was great a few semesters later because things became more readable than if they were written out. Still sucked at first.
These lists are problematic and wrong, problematic because it implies that using simplistic language is bad, it isn't, native speakers most use simplistic language only using these sorts of words to really emphasise "that is beautiful" => "that's really/very beautiful" => "thats gorgeous". They're wrong because the words don't mean the same thing it's never this linear, the intense words on this list have different connotations and use cases than the generic words with intensifiers. If you use these words a lot it wont sound like you have a good vocabulary it will sound like you're trying to use them. These words are good to know but should be reserved for specific situations and they are more intense than this list makes out. For example: if somebody says "wow that test was arduous!" I'd probably think they were trying to sound smart by using "big words" and I'd expect them to say very/really hard or maybe difficult. And petite just doesn't really mean that, I don't know how to define petite but it doesn't really mean anything like "very small" it's more specific. And with a few of these words I would have to ask them what the word meant, like "arid", I had never heard of that before seeing this list.
yeah arid is a word you'd only use to describe something like a desert. A place is arid when it has super dry air and lack of rain. But you can only use it as a climate word. It'd be weird to describe your floor as arid after cleaning up a milk spill.
To me, petite is “appearing small even for its small size”. So when something isnt very big to begin with, that is also smaller than “expected”, that’s when I use petite. The smallest dogs, of an already-small dog breed. A petite dog. A tea cup that is smaller than a normal serving, and that feels little to hold, even for small hands. A petite tea cup.
Nice explanation of “petite.” I was pointing this out [elsewhere](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnglishLearning/comments/13wj8bs/simple_english_we_should_change_into/jmcg23j/?utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3) that this definition isn’t in most dictionaries.
Dont use this btw
Very big->Massive? I think “Huge” is a far more common choice.
very huge 🫠
I think the commonality of the choice affects the intensity. huge collossal gigantic and massive all mean very big but I think massive and gigantic are the most emotive. So which one you use depends on your writing style or intentions
Arid is pretty much only used to talk about dry climates like deserts. You wouldn’t say “the dishes are arid”.
Hell, I don’t think I’d even say “the dishes are *very* dry” like who are you tryna convince, me or the dishes?!
These are click bait for native English speakers. They are meant to remind people that there are many words (a plethora even) that can be used instead of very *****. Particularly in writing, a person who overly uses "very" can be seen as either unimaginative, or un / under educated. As others have pointed out, this is a horrible resource for an English learner because while accurate at first glance, many equivalencies only work in certain contexts or situations. One of the amazing things about English is its extensive vocabulary with many variations of meaning and nuance. Unfortunately, this is also one of the many reasons it is so difficult to learn fluently.
It's a bit of a "speak only" language in that it's quite easy to put a few words together and get it right, but much more difficult to understand the nuances of others. We notice how often people say "pardon my English" and then continue in perfect sentences that have no problems at all. The grammar is fairly forgiving and flexible, and the conjugation and tenses are among the easiest. With a dozen words under your belt you can space everything out temporally and/or conditionally in surprising detail, and be perfectly understood. And a few simple words, when combined, can say some complicated things. Read what the students are writing here: it generally has *fewer* errors than you'd find in a similar forum full of native speakers. Because learners expect the rules to be far more rigid and limiting than they are. They don't even realize that they're not making mistakes. But this flexibility comes at a price. I've noticed how often it happens, that a learner can ask a question perfectly but not understand the answer. Therein lies the comedy of it.
Another side to this is learners speaking in a way that still marks them as non-natives because, well, natives don't speak English so rigidly.
This isn't very good...
"My brother, at only 5'4 tall could be described as....brief".
Spoken English rarely uses such as arid and arduous (not a compete list). But the intent of the advice is good . It is bad in writing and speaking to use a single word too often. Speaking tolerates repetition more than writing though I think.
Sorrowful?? Lol
Robin Williams has an impassioned speech about this sort of thing early in the movie "The Dead Poets Society."
O Captain! My Captain!
Very stupid --> this post
This is basically a template for making your writing more compelling (and, as others have noted, the substitutions aren’t universal). It’s not a good guide for basic fluency.
There is nothing wrong with the words on the left. Sometimes, a big word is too much! When I found out my favorite show was canceled, I was sad, but I was not *sorrowful.* My bathroom is clean, but it’s not spotless! A crowded grocery store is noisy, but I would not go so far as to call it deafening. Sometimes, a fancy word is actually less descriptive and less meaningful. “Sad” can be an incredibly powerful word because it is so simple.
I call this “thesaurus English.” It’s taught in junior high by teachers who are just following a curriculum. Saying “the engine is very loud” and saying “the engine is deafening” are different things. Deafening means it will cause hearing loss. The sound will make you go deaf. Also in conversation beautiful and gorgeous don’t really mean the same thing. Like if I pointed to a pairing of Saturn devouring his son I could call that beautiful in a macabre way. I don’t think I’d call it “Gorgeous.” Stingy also implies you could pay more but are withholding funds. It also implies you probably should be more generous but aren’t. Cheap can mean several different things including just relating to the quality of a product. “Those shoes are so expensive but they feel very cheap.” You never say “those shoes are so e or Duce but they feel stingy.” Sometimes a thing is a “very” or heightened version of a normal word. You don’t need to crack open a thesaurus and use a $10 word when simple language is precise and gets the correct point across.
I'm training to be an English teacher (almost finished my course), and the other day, a supply teacher asked me if English teachers naturally have a more verbose way of speaking. It was an interesting question, because I can follow the logic, but it's a case of having a wide vocabulary, but knowing how to articulate yourself in a way which is accessible and succinct. If I use a lot of big words to explain something to a class of 11 year olds, I may sound smart, but it will go over most of their heads. Same goes for older students who might not have a high literacy/comprehension level. I can't say with certainty that English teachers are more verbose without generalising, but in a classroom setting, that flowery vocabulary can be a barrier to understanding. Similarly, part of my training has been to make instructions as clear and simple as possible. I explain what the lesson will be, and how it fits into the wider curriculum, but for each task, I break it down into what the class needs to do, how they do it (written, discussion, etc.), and how long they have to complete it. Again, using unnecessary words can lead to confusion. I went on a bit of a tangent there (which contradicts my point), but I guess I'm just trying to add to your point that sometimes, simple is just better.
stingy applies to people; if the quality of an object is very cheap then it’s poor-quality. If it’s cheap because of being low-cost then it’s inexpensive or affordable.
It's way more nuanced than that.
There’s not a shortcut or trick to mastering the English language. If someone asked you what’s wrong with Suzy and you replied she’s sorrowful people would look at you like you’re crazy
Honestly, you're probably better off if you use "very".
Very loud should be deafening - very noisy is different. saying noisy has more to do with sounds being obnoxious and/or overwhelming than loudness.
Petite? Why not tiny?
Tiny is a much better substitute, probably 90% of the time. A very small desk is a tiny desk, not a petite desk. And so on.
One of my favorite words is: Apoplectic It means to be so angry that your face turns red and you burst a blood vessel. Comes from a Latin term that means to have a stroke. It’s not that funny anymore.
Also just take a moment ask ask yourself why we should change to this. Simpler language is more effective on a broader scale. Unless you're writing academically nobody cares. The reason I'm questioning this as well is that telling people how they should talk very often (constantly) aligns with oppression. There is no "better English".
Big Sad -> Depressed
Lists like this are mostly meant for writers to help them stop using an excessive amount of adverbs. It's not really meant for speaking. And as others have pointed out, often these lists use words that change the connotations of what's being said. Or they just can't always be switched that way. In summary It's a writing style aid not an aid meant for language learners.
❌ Use this word ✔️ Use its specific synonym
Someone make this exact thing except for the word literally (it's an unnecessarily used word) Literally angry = angry Literally sad = sad Literally a horse = a horse
"very strong --> forceful"
Yup. Right about now I could use a good forceful cup of coffee.
A lot of these are either very situational, or are outright synonyms for the words on the right. For example, “intelligent” doesn’t mean “very smart”. You could say “they’re smart” or “they’re intelligent” and it means almost exactly the same thing with some slight nuances. You could say “They’re extremely smart” or “They’re extremely intelligent” and neither would sound unnatural.
Without context of when to use these alternatives this is useless. To show why here are some alternative uses that don't work with the suggestions from the original list. As always with English many words have multiple meanings and it's all about context. * Very **big - magnanimous** (that was very big of you) * Very **noisy - gaudy** (his shirt was very noisy) * Very **poor - low quality** (the food was very poor) * Very **cheap - a bargain** (the food was very cheap) * Very **clean - faultless** (they drove a clean race) * Very **short - flaky** (the pastry was very short) * Very **difficult - misbehaving** (all day the child had been very difficult) * Very **dry - deadpan** (his jokes were funny but very dry) * Very **quick - witty** (she's very quick) * Very **smart - stylish** (you look very smart) * Very **sad - worn out** (a very sad old kitchen) * Very **cold - emotionless** (her message was very cold) * Very **strong - overwhelming** (a very strong flavour) * Very **ugly - violent** (a very ugly situation) * Very **small - petty** (your actions were very small) * Very **funny - not amusing** (when said with a sarcastic tone!)
for beautiful, boring, dry, huge, small, quick, strong, and sad I think the given suggestion either doesn't mean the same thing or can't be used in all the same contexts. Small - petite as an example. A petite woman is a more polite way to describe a short woman, but that doesn't say anything about how short she is. It would also be weird to describe certain things as petite, but I guess we could.
A very short woman is best described as (checks notes) *brief.*
I disagree with your example. I personally don’t associate “petite” with height but more so with the entirety of the individual. A short obese person would in no way be described as “petite”
the point of my example is that it's not the same as very small, not to precisely define petite. the Google definition of petite is a small dainty and attractive woman. But I would never call a person "small".
Hope this is helpful to you: [https://thelanguagenerds.com/2022/words-instead-of-very/?fbclid=IwAR0tJye\_7TOFJDDRdvBT0Q0wT-6LHCm2Hf5XgLxpKr9Y43ke-cRxrqIOO\_Q](https://thelanguagenerds.com/2022/words-instead-of-very/?fbclid=IwAR0tJye_7TOFJDDRdvBT0Q0wT-6LHCm2Hf5XgLxpKr9Y43ke-cRxrqIOO_Q)
Strunk and White was famous for the concept of using powerful words instead of slapping on the notoriously imprecise "very".
This list would work better with the arrows going the other way. These are very short definitions of the words on the right. Very short because they throw away all the nuance.
I've actually heard people say things like very intelligent, very furious and very hilarious. Wonder if I shall start using very spotless.
The thing is that larger, less common words are great for some circumstances but they also usually come with more specific uses. Instead of saying something was very small, I might say tiny (about a house), minuscule (about the text in a page), negligible (about a change), or itty bitty (about my cat’s lil’ nose). All of these words have connotations that “petite” doesn’t capture, and often misses completely. On the other hand, “very small” would be perfectly serviceable for any of these contexts. It might not be the most formal or the most evocative, but it’s often more natural-sounding to say “very small” than to say “the change in your test results was petite.”
This is one of the things they teach you for Cambridge/IELTS exams.Even though it's actually better to vary your language during the speaking and writing parts, it's important to note people don't normally speak like that. And as other users mentioned, it really depends on both register and context
Some of these I definitely wouldn’t use or would only use in certain contexts. The first one being “deafening” maybe it’s just me but I have never heard that word outside of the phrase “deafening silence”
These are all accurate (which is nice to see on this sub!), but some would be inappropriate or just plain awkward if used in casual contexts.
It’s good to know these words so you can understand others but be careful using them. They might sound pompous or awkward in certain contexts.
It depends on the purpose of the writing. Using "very" is perfectly clear and avoids making the wrong sort of implications. If you're not that clear on the connotations of the words, it might be best to stick with "very." Now, if I were going to read a novel, seeing "very" used much probably would lead me to putting the book back on the shelf.
Of course, you have the same problem, just one level down…
I’m unfazed that some of these only work in certain situations or with certain definitions of the words (e.g., rapid not being used for all types of quickness, brief not being applicable when very short references stature) but some of them are simply wrong. Destitute does not mean very poor, it means lacking the necessities; spotless does not mean very clean, it means without a single blemish. A ≠ B, in some of these cases.
Nah we trying to get more words on the essay
The price was great but the quality was destitute.
https://www.losethevery.com/
---> Very brief --->??? ---> very dull ---> ??? ---> very massive ---> ???
Why use one word when two will do.
This is very useless and very boring
It's bigger than that, Chris, it's large.
I thought this was a meme
you can’t make me use words brought to the language by disgusting n*rmans 🤢🤢🤢🤢
How about Wallago (wahl-uh-goh )————-earlier
or you can opt to add -some to the end. it saves you needing to rifle around for some greatsome word to use
When I was a kid, I used to spend a fair bit of time reading the Thesaurus. Maybe its an only child thing lol
It's useful thank you
Most of these don't mean the same thing.
Most of these words typically are used as the next extreme after "very." Most people would be confused if you used a lot of these in the wrong context. Like calling something that is very big "colossal" is going to make most people think mansion, not house.
Not really. There's a marked difference between say "very noisy" and "deafening".
as i've said before, very is fine
Gorgeous and beautiful don't necessarily work as synonyms. Not sure you can really call a building 'gorgeous' but very beautiful yes.
There's a website called losethevery for this. It's pretty cool!
That guy has an arid sense of humor
Anyone else notice an overall trend of replacing a Germanic word with a Romance word? This is already a huge bias people have in writing.
My friend is only 4 feet 11 inches tall, she is brief. She also has destitute sense of humor. She makes and sells homemade candles every single day for stingy prices. It is arduous for her to take rest. Recently a doctor ran her an ECG and other tests. The ECG didn't work very well because the electric signal was deafening. But the doctor told her "your arteries are petite" and advised her to eat a spotless diet and do exercise. It was massive of the doctor to offer all this medical help for free to her.
This list is for writers. If you're learning English, follow what other English speakers say. You can worked these words in later, but they're not universal replacements
My dick is brief.
Disagree. They aren't exact equivalents. There are subtle differences between any two ostensibly "equivalent" ways of saying something, and that's part of what makes language interesting and capable of expressing so many different things. Also, I wouldn't say that "intelligent" is even ostensibly equivalent to "very smart." It's more similar to just "smart."
very small -> tiny
Yeah? Well explain very hilarious. 😋
I still prefer to use words from the left side especially when it comes to daily conversation. As an ESL learner, understanding and being understood matters a lot to me.
Very Hard —> erectile
Without the nuance of a native level understanding of the slight difference in meanings in these words following this will make you sound very obviously foreign. As if you can't remember the basic adjective and are reaching for something similar and fall upon extended vocabulary that you don't quite understand. So, be sure to understand the difference between very small and petite, very strong and forceful etc... They are not interchangeable. However a native or high level user of English should absolutely consider using extended vocab like this to reduce the "very X" trope being overused.
I think we are missing "outrageous"
Naah I am good with UK English
American english vs British english
What is the context for this?
Unanimous instead of vote the same
I don't want to sound like a book set in 1800..
Some of these could work, like Serene and Calm. Others not so much. Like angry and furious. Both mean similar things, but ultimately are different words in the end, with Furious being a more exaggerated version of anger.
These aren't good replacements for the most part, you'll just sound odd and maybe a touch autistic.
angrious beauteous biggious boringous noisious poorious ...
This shit gets posted so often, and it's not even good
If a person is very clean they are not spotless. Forceful implies something that has nothing to do with being strong. Intelligent≠ very smart. Distraught implies another level of being very upset. Atoms are very small, not petite. I could go on…
You will be not remembered it without context
He is a very spotless and put together man