# 'Very', 'sehr', 'erg', 'très': neg. - only in Indo-European ?



## ThomasK

a Could anyone confirm my hypothesis that *a lot of common adverbs stressing intensity were originally negative words* ? 

           e.g.  'zeer' in Dutch might refer to the word for 'pain', 'erg' refers to the German 'schlimm' or English 'bad' (_it is too bad_)
                  we use 'wreed' (cruel) in our dialect for 'zeer'/ very

b  *Why do we prefer negative words to express greater intensity ?*

   German:      furchtbar, ungeheuer  (only with negative words perhaps here)
   English :     terribly, awfully   (also with positive words)
   French :      affreusement ? 

Because _big (in the broadest sense) and negative_ seems way bigger than _big and positive_ ?  Like colours: a black dot seems bigger than a yellow one, from a psychological point of view..


----------



## Tim~!

ThomasK said:


> *Why do we prefer negative words to express greater intensity ?*
> English :     terribly, awfully   (also with positive words)


In its original sense, _awful_ meant "inspiring awe", and was a positive thing.  (Think of _awesome_ now.)

In this sense, _awfully good_ was a positive adverb to describe a positive thing.  It was only later that the word became negative, although the adverb retains the positive connotation of the original.


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks. You might be quite right but I suddenly now thought that awe implies some kind of fear: we are impressed by what we see, which makes us marvel at and maybe get worried about its power. 

Just by the way: terrific is the opposite ; first referring to terror and fear, but now meaning 'wonderful'. That would be a confirmation of my hypothesis. Or is that wishful thinking ? ;-)


----------



## jmx

It might be of your interest that in Japanese the word "taihen" means 'very' when before an adjective, but it means something like 'difficult, painful' when isolated.


----------



## ThomasK

Really ? That is quite incredible ! Thanks. Now, we still have to try to explain that, but I imagine my colour and psychological explanation ('extreme' joy considered less intensive than 'extreme' pain... 

Anyone who knows about the origin of the word 
 - 'very' in English ? 
 - 'très' in French ?
 - 'sehr' in German (has it ever been synonymous with 'Weh' ???) ?


----------



## Forero

How "badly" do you want to know? 

_Sehr_ is related to English _sore_ and _sorry_, and more remotely to Latin _sæuus_ (mad).


----------



## HKK

'Very' is from Old French, and shares the same root as "waar(lijk)". Down here, there's also the dialect word 'gemaan' meaning the same thing. I think it must come from 'gemeen' (mean).


----------



## ThomasK

Great addition, I very badly want to know after reading this (I had never thought of 'knowing badly') !!!

 I had guessed 'sehr' was linked with 'pain' as in Dutch, but I had never thought of the link with 'sore' and certainly not of the link between 'sore' and 'sorry' !!! Thanks !

In the meantime I was told of the plattdeutsch *'bannig*/ bännig', meaning 'very', which appears to be linked with excommunication from church or community. 

But if anyone could give me a hint on the psychology behind (...) this use of negative adverbs for intensity, please do. Or is my guess so correct ? 

Grazie mille !

Hello Leuven, and... 'bedankt' !

'Very' then is no corroboration of my theory, I suppose. It reminds me of 'really' in English. 

But *'gemaan'* (lmean) is interesting, never heard of that. That would be some kind of corroboration though. It reminds me of *'nijg'* in the province of East Flanders/ Brabant, which could be related with 'nijdig' (jealous), I read somewhere...


----------



## Erutuon

The root of _very_ (to add to what HKK says) is the stem of Latin _vērus_, true, real. The Old French word that was the proximate ancestor of _very_ is the same word that gives Modern French _vrai_(_e_).


----------



## ThomasK

O. So not negative in any way, I suppose. The note on Japanase has surprised me though: the 'phenomenon' seems to work in that language as well. 

I am wondering whether it works in Romanic languages in fact. Can one make sentences with 'terriblement beau' ??? I don't think so but I do not know French that well. Spanish, Italian ?


----------



## Mahaodeh

Up to my knowledge, this phenomenon does not seem to exist in Classical Arabic nor in MSA; however, in colloquial and spoken Arabic it began to surface in the last couple of decades. It's probably due to the influence of English.

As an example, the word raheeb means "frightening/terrifying" is used sometimes in colloquial to mean "awesome" although it still retains it original meaning; so you would have to tell the difference from the context.


----------



## Outsider

Here's a previous thread, All languages: Very.


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks for telling me ! I am focussing on the fourth aspect though.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

ThomasK said:


> O. So not negative in any way, I suppose. The note on Japanase has surprised me though: the 'phenomenon' seems to work in that language as well.
> 
> I am wondering whether it works in Romanic languages in fact. Can one make sentences with 'terriblement beau' ??? I don't think so but I do not know French that well. Spanish, Italian ?


 
Yes, French can also use " terriblement beau" ( not sure for "affreusement" ) instead of "remarquablement beau" that is undoubtedly stronger than "très beau" and this use dates back to three ( or more ) centuries , unlike I was thinking, before looking up in the T.L.F ( Trésor de la Langue Française ). What is new is perhaps that it is more used before an adjective like "très" (which cannot be used without being followed by an adjective or an adverb ).
The etymology of "très" is quite different, since it comes from "tras" < Latin "trans" (beyond ) , hence the meaning of " right through, thoroughly" .


----------



## ThomasK

Merci bien. Did you really mean to say that you can 'remarquablement très bien' ? In that context I would think that it no longer emphasizes the 'très' but functions as a sentence adverb rather. 

'Très' : could 'right through' not be considered negative ? I know, I might be suffering from wishful thinking ;-), but it does not seem nonsensical as such to me...


----------



## Outsider

ThomasK said:


> 'Très' : could 'right through' not be considered negative ?


How?


----------



## ThomasK

Well, _throughout_ could imply piercing something, not keeping it intact. And being pierced is not what I like...


----------



## tom_in_bahia

If "very" is related to "vrai" in French, where did the Czech version, "velmi" come from??

My reason for asking was that I had (my fault for not looking into it) assumed that very and velmi were some northern European Proto-Germanic word that got erased from German. Now that I know very is linked to Latin, I would like to know where velmi comes from...I know that in Polish it is bardzo. Polish and Czech are related Slavic languages, so who borrowed from whom here?


----------



## ThomasK

I have just learnt that 'baaie' expresses 'zeer' in South African and that it comes from the Indonesia banya. Whether that has a negative meaning, is not yet clear, but it seems quite strange to me that this kind of frequent intensifiers is borrowed from a foreign language. (If anyone knows how this can happen, please tell me. Thanks.)


----------



## Joannes

ThomasK said:


> I have just learnt that 'baaie' expresses 'zeer' in South African and that it comes from the Indonesia banya. Whether that has a negative meaning, is not yet clear, but it seems quite strange to me that this kind of frequent intensifiers is borrowed from a foreign language. (If anyone knows how this can happen, please tell me. Thanks.)


Wel, net omdat dergelijke woorden zo frequent zijn, worden ze opgenomen. Zeker voor talen in transitie wat het Nederlands/Afrikaans zeker was op het moment dat er sprake was van een significante Maleise invloed.

(En net zoals in het Maleis betekent *baie* in het Afrikaans zowel 'heel' als 'veel', een negatieve oorsprong lijkt dus minder voor de hand te liggen.)


----------



## ThomasK

OK, I see. Dank ! I prefer to go on in English, because other people might be interested. But I had not realized Ned./Afr. was in transition at a particular time (after the arrival of the Boeren ???). 

Still, would you be able to give other examples of this. For example, maybe: 
 - we have some functional words in French in our dialect (pertang/ pourtant) ?

I mainly see verbs and especially nouns being copied, also adjectives or exclamations. No English intensifiers in Dutch as far as i can see...
 -


----------



## Joannes

ThomasK said:


> OK, I see. Dank ! I prefer to go on in English, because other people might be interested. But I had not realized Ned./Afr. was in transition at a particular time (after the arrival of the Boeren ???).


Yeah, well Dutch was unstable and in transition at the Cape from the day it arrived there. It doesn't focus on the role of Malay, but you may want to check out this thread about Afrikaans and its development.



ThomasK said:


> Still, would you be able to give other examples of this. For example, maybe:
> - we have some functional words in French in our dialect (pertang/ pourtant) ?


I'm sorry, what is it you want me to give examples of?



ThomasK said:


> I mainly see verbs and especially nouns being copied, also adjectives or exclamations. No English intensifiers in Dutch as far as i can see...
> -


Me neither. *Super* maybe, but it needn't be.


----------



## ThomasK

Super is certainly to be considered a good example of words that might have been borrowed from a foreign language, but of course it is basically Latin..

Would you find separate intensifiers borrowed in Dutch ?

janG


----------



## Joannes

ThomasK said:


> Would you find separate intensifiers borrowed in Dutch ?


Apart from *super*, the only two I can think of are *mega* and *extreem*, but as you now they're not half as common as *heel*, *zeer* and *erg*, and they have a more specific usage.


----------



## ThomasK

Fine, but have those been borrowed ? I really wonder !


----------



## Joannes

ThomasK said:


> Fine, but have those been borrowed ? I really wonder !


Of course they were borrowed, but probably not as intensifiers.


----------



## werrr

tom_in_bahia said:


> If "very" is related to "vrai" in French, where did the Czech version, "velmi" come from??
> 
> My reason for asking was that I had (my fault for not looking into it) assumed that very and velmi were some northern European Proto-Germanic word that got erased from German. Now that I know very is linked to Latin, I would like to know where velmi comes from...I know that in Polish it is bardzo. Polish and Czech are related Slavic languages, so who borrowed from whom here?


The Polish word “bardzo” is exceptional, it’s cognate to Czech “brzo” (soon, early) and Latin “brevis” (= short).

The word “velmi” is a Panslavic word of this PIE origin.


----------



## Mugi

jmartins said:


> It might be of your interest that in Japanese the word "taihen" means 'very' when before an adjective, but it means something like 'difficult, painful' when isolated.


 


ThomasK said:


> The note on Japanase has surprised me though: the 'phenomenon' seems to work in that language as well.


 
Not so fast - the original meaning of "taihen" is "big change" - it was a neutral term. However, given that "big changes" are not always welcomed by people, it's not surprising that it should come to be used to describe 'difficult' situations.


----------



## ThomasK

Too bad - but I know: I am too much of a wishful thinker... On the other hand: big and bad seem related, I would think, as we cannot control what (and who) is big, bigger than us. Big tends to be scary. It reminds me of the black and yellow dot, same size: put them on a coloured sheet and they will work differently: the black dot will tend to be bigger, will be more conspicuous, whereas the yellow one seems to go in hiding. 

Do admit that I was at first not told that 'taihen' meant 'big changes'. That got me going !


----------



## javier8907

Well, I can't think an example of this in Spanish, but in Basque, there are two words "izugarria" and "ikaragarria" that when used before adjectives they have the meaning of "very", although their original meaning is "terrifying". In fact, the first word has gained currency as "big and/or impressive".


----------



## ThomasK

The trend is quite clear then: lots of intensifiers in lots of languages refer to negative things ! The only thing I still wonder about is the reason why. Is my colour theory correct, or sufficient as an explanation ?

Thanks !


----------



## Forero

I think the best explanation so far is your post #29 about things we cannot change, which may be dangerous, things that are overpowering, "hyper" things, things that are *too* ... whatever.

I don't buy the color theory.  A black dot appears bigger (on a white background?) because it is easier to detect physically, with better-defined boundaries, not because black as a color seems "negative".  In fact, black is merely dark, not bad.  Darkness is not good for reading or running around, but it is wonderful when it comes time to go to bed.

A big black spider with a bright red hourglass on its big abdomen is striking because of the sharp angles in the hourglass and its legs and the well-defined boundaries both between the spider and its surroundings and between the very black and the very red.

A poison green toad is similarly striking with its bright green (and other) well-defined coloring.

Striking is negative in the case of a spider because we know spiders kill things near their own size, spiders have too many legs, weapons I suppose, and we know this kind is venomous.  The relative size of the black widow compared to most spiders completes the impression of dangerousness.  Compared to us, however, the black widow is small and helpless except for its chemical weapon, that we don't see directly.

The poison green toad is also big and bad, as are the big bad (grey) wolf, and Moby Dick, the big bad white whale, a forest fire, and poison mushrooms, red with white spots, all white, whatever.


----------



## ThomasK

The colour theory: you might be right. the emotional association of black with negative things, is probably false. I am not quite sure though: is the association of black clouds with negative things accidental ? I admit: it might be some kind of bias on my behalf, but I suppose I'll have to turn that into a separate thread...

Thanks !


----------



## JRNetwork

I can't think of any examples in Spanish, although the opposite is true in the case of adding "bien" as an intensifier - which is very common.

La casa es *bien *grande
_The house is very big_

Here "bien" is substituting "muy", which is the Spanish word for "very".
It comes from Lat. _*multum*, _which reminds me of the Spanish word for "fine" (fine as in the ticket you receive for traffic violations), which is *multa*, derived from the latin word of the same name and meaning.

Perhaps there could be a relationship between the two.


----------



## ThomasK

I am sorry, but I do not get your point, JR: I know the phenomenon in French (but then isn't it in fact some kind of understatement, like the English fairly). I am looking for cases where the intensifier appears to be 'basically'/ originally negative . I guess there will be examples/ instances in Spanish as well. Those could be interesting...


----------



## ThomasK

I had an off-line exchange with Forero, but did not get a reply. His point seemed right indeed: the association is not based on objectivity, no association is, I guess. 

However, I think that more things that we consider objective, are not, but still work. I do know that the death colour differs from one culture to the other, but I wonder whether the association black= negative does not hold in lots of cultures. Just very briefly, because that is not really our point.


----------



## Arrius

_Baie_ is indeed the most frequent way of expressing Dutch _zeer_ (very) in Afrikaans, but they also share with Dutch, _erg _and_ zeer_ written with an S (seer), which regularly happens with Dutch Z's in the _taal._ 
I cannot think of any words with negative connotations used in Standard or Dialect Arabic for _very,_ and the commonest, _jiddan,_ comes, in fact, from a root to do with goodness.


----------



## ThomasK

That seems almost strange to me. I would not be able to give Dutch intensifiers that have positive connotations ('goed' might be used, but is not strong).

See also here, where all kinds of expressions are listed used to intensify... But in Dutch only, alas !


----------



## vmrweb

Hi Thomas,

very interesting subject. As far as I could see from the first skimming, nobody did answer the last question:



ThomasK said:


> Anyone who knows about the origin of the word
> - 'very' in English ?
> - 'très' in French ?
> - 'sehr' in German (has it ever been synonymous with 'Weh' ???) ?



The root of 'sehr' is Old High German 'ser' (=sore), i.e. the same as of 'zeer', so, yes, it was a synonym of 'weh'. The original meaning still lives in the adjective 'unversehrt' (but the verb 'versehren', mentioned in the other thread, is old-fashioned and very uncommon). Is there anything alike in Dutch (verzeeren? onverzeerd?)? 

My etymological dictionary (Duden Herkunftswörterbuch) also says they probably all come from the Latin 'saevus' (=cruel) *and *Old Irish 'saeth' (=distress), so I assume it might be rewarding to have a closer look at Celtic languages, too...

A few examples from colloquial German (a lot of them have an undertone of irony):

Some that support your theory:
'unheimlich' (uncanny), 'schrecklich' (terrible), 'ungeheuer' (scary), 'verdammt' (damned),  'wahnsinnig', 'irre' (both: crazy), 'höllisch' (like hell), 'mörderisch' ("murderously"), 'tierisch' ("like an animal"), "tod-" (deadly),
'krass' ("crass" from Latin crassus), 'gewaltig' ("violently")

Neutral and positiv ones:
'kräftig' (strongly), 'gescheit' ("sensibly"), 'höchst' ([most] highly), 'äußerst' (utmost), 'beträchtlich' (considerably), 'tüchtig' (similiar to doughty), 
'bemerkenswert' (remarkably), 'unglaublich' (unbelievably), 'ungemein' (in a not common way), 'mächtig' ("powerfully"), 'unsagbar' (unspeakably), 'ausnehmend' (exceptionally), 'unwahrscheinlich' ("improbably"), 'ordentlich' ("oderly"), 'hübsch' ("prettily"), 'sauber' ("properly"), 'herzlich' ("heartily")

Kind regards


----------



## ThomasK

Vielen Dank, VMR ! Interessante Auskünfte (yes ?) ! Now we'd have find a Celt and interview him/ her !

I am quite impressed by your list of pos. or neutral one (I'd call in doubt whether some are really neutral or pos., in their original meaning, like _äußerst, mächtig, unglaublich, gescheit_ but that is not that important). I was told there is a word like _banning_ in Plattdeutsch, which is negative indeed. It would be interesting to check the common dialectal intensifiers, as they seem to be neg. by origin in a lot of cases...

But thanks !


----------



## origumi

In modern Hebrew we have "nora" = both "awful" and "awesome". It comes from the root YRE (fear). Similar to Greek "deinos" I guess.
Also "nifla" = both "very good" and "unachievable". It comes from the root PLE (wonder, magic).
Another example is "keles" (noun), "lekales" (verb), "mekulas" (adjective). It means both "ridiculous" and "praiseful". However, this one is irrelevant to the discussion because the former is Hebrew (root KLS) and the latter is derived from Greek (Koine) "Cles" (like in Heracles, Cleopatra).


----------



## ThomasK

So I understand there are at least some negative intensifiers ('awfully', 'ridiculously'). 

The 'awesome' 'awful' seems to raise another issue : an intensifier can refer to the same underlying word (stem ?) but have different, even opposite connotations. So far though noone has pointed that out, and I don't recognize that phenomenon in Dutch intensifiers.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


ThomasK said:


> So I understand there are at least some negative intensifiers ('awfully', 'ridiculously').
> 
> The 'awesome' 'awful' seems to raise another issue : an intensifier can refer to the same underlying word (stem ?)


How do you mean?



> but have different, even opposite connotations. So far though noone has pointed that out, and I don't recognize that phenomenon in Dutch intensifiers.


How do you mean?

Maybe I misunderstand, but _verschrikkelijk_ en _verschrikkelijk goed_ comes to my mind.

Frank


----------



## Flaminius

origumi said:


> Another example is "keles" (noun), "lekales" (verb), "mekulas" (adjective). It means both "ridiculous" and "praiseful". However, this one is irrelevant to the discussion because the former is Hebrew (root KLS) and the latter is derived from Greek (Koine) "Cles" (like in Heracles, Cleopatra).


Hello,

You mean לקלס is "to praise" and "to ridicule" at the same time (I couldn't find the latter sense in Milon Morfix)?  Also interesting is that it's from the Greek κλέος, glory.  I wonder how the Hebrew root has acquired the negative sense.


----------



## ThomasK

I meant that a word can have a double meaning, pos. en negative. 'Verschrikkelijk (goed)' is not a good example, because the intensifier is certainly originally negative !

In the case of 'awe' and 'praise'/'ridicule' in 'keles', the meaning is ambiguous, neg. and/or positive (but defined by the context, I guess).


----------



## origumi

Flaminius said:


> Hello,
> 
> You mean לקלס is "to praise" and "to ridicule" at the same time (I couldn't find the latter sense in Milon Morfix)? Also interesting is that it's from the Greek κλέος, glory. I wonder how the Hebrew root has acquired the negative sense.


 
According to www.babylon.com/define/106/Hebrew-Dictionary.html:
 קלס = scorn, mockery. Also: לעג, לגלוג, בוז, צחוק, חרפה, בושה, ביזיון, קלון, שנינה​ 
According to Ravmilim:
1. בז, גינה, לעג, קילל (the negative sense)
2. הילל, שיבח מאוד, הילל ורומם (the positive sense)​ 
The negative sense is the original and appears in the bible. Compare לקלס to לקלל (to curse) - similar sound and sense. Compare also לקלל to להתגולל with the sense of to harm (as in Rashi's explanation of the Cain and Abel's story) - similar sound, similar sense.​ 
In Ezekiel: וְלֹא הייתי [הָיִית] כַּזּוֹנָה לְקַלֵּס אֶתְנָן 

Search biblical Hebrew words in: sparks.simania.co.il​


----------



## Lugubert

In a file somewhere, I collect Swedish words that have changed their meanings over the not too many years. A subsection on intensifiers is quite related to this thread. _Hemskt_ used to mean scary, terrifying, but is for all age groups, genders and environments quite normal today for _very_.

We also have an exact parallel to Frank's  "_verschrikkelijk_ en _verschrikkelijk goed_": _förskräckligt_ och _förskräckligt bra_, but perhaps even more common _gräsligt_ etc. (cf. German hässlich).

Some transitions will be felt as cultural clashes between young and old. One youngster objected to a newspaper headline on _häftiga strider _(intense combatting). Warring and combatting can to me unproblematically be "intense" in a negative way, but youthspeak has _häftig_ meaning, like, just wow!


----------



## ThomasK

Woooow, interesting. However, one note: 
- _häftig_ is still a matter of (sociolectal ?) connotation
- the Hebrew _awe_ word has been 'sanctioned' in all its ambiguity, and is in the dictionary
But I would be interested in reading more of those words the meaning of which has changed in recent years (though it might be a new topic rather)...

Would you have any of those double (ambiguous) meanings in Swedish, Lugubert ? I now thought of _to rock_ in English: it seemed so strange to me that it can refer to the rocking of a cradle and the rocking of a boat. 

_Förschräckligt_ : that was about our starting point, that intensifiers often were adjectives with a negative meaning, but now often only refer to intensity.


----------



## elirlandes

In Ireland, (when speaking English, not Irish) you will often hear "fierce" used as an intensifier.
fierce = violent, savage, threatening...


----------



## Basaloe

I am not sure I have understand the meaning of the thread completely, but in Swedish we have the world _as _which in reality means carrion or carcass but is used as an insult at the same time it an very popular intensifier. Isnt the same thing about _skit_ (shit?)


----------



## ThomasK

Do you then mean _fiercely_, Elirlandes, as in fiercely good or something the like ? 


Basaloe: can you put that in a sentence ? It seems like a good example...


----------



## Lugubert

ThomasK said:


> Would you have any of those double (ambiguous) meanings in Swedish, Lugubert ? I now thought of _to rock_ in English: it seemed so strange to me that it can refer to the rocking of a cradle and the rocking of a boat.


Like I wrote, I've got a collection of recent changes. The problem here is, that some of them, despite happening during my lifetime, the new mewning will be as difficult to explain to some elderly Swedes as explaining the old one to young Swedes. They might just look odd to speakers of othre languages.

I have no problems with _rock_. Both can be _vagga_ in Swedish, and that word also means _cradle_. A rocking chair is a _gungstol_, a boat will _gunga_ in hard sea, and _gunga_ also means a/to swing.


----------



## elirlandes

ThomasK said:


> Do you then mean _fiercely_, Elirlandes, as in fiercely good or something the like ?
> 
> 
> Basaloe: can you put that in a sentence ? It seems like a good example...



No - unusually...

It was fierce hot yesterday.
I am fierce thirsty.

It is a very strong intensifier, along the lines of "extremely", and is very current, especially in rural Ireland.


----------



## ThomasK

I see, and without the adverbial suffix -ly then. Interesting though !


----------



## Jcpas

People constantly seek new ways to add force to things.  Words like "very" are particularly subject to change because when used frequently, they lose force, the very thing they're intended to communicate.  So we look for ways to my such intensifiers more intense; one such way of drawing more attention and thereby creating more force is simple contradiction.  C'est terrible!  That's wicked! (both positive).  By using negative words, it just catches your attention.  Context will correct your initial reaction until the word becomes so overused that it loses it's negative meaning entirely.

I don't think this applies strictly to adverbs though, perhaps it applies to intensifiers in general.    And it is certainly only one of a countless number of ways that languages change over time, there are of course other ways.  French seems to rely more on exaggeration.  "Ne" added "pas" for a stronger negation, it eventually weakened to the standard, now "ne" is rarely used at all in speech!  "Trop" is increasingly replacing "très."  Etc...

I would recommend the book "The Unfolding of Language" by Guy Deutscher.  It is an excellent book on the reasons behind changes like this.


----------



## ThomasK

That is a very interesting consideration: that we want to imply force, which requires catching attention and therefore keeping changing things, creating contradictions - or maybe paradoxes (which keep turning up when one tries to generalize things, I think). [Hope this is a correct summary]

The tendency towards exaggeration seems common to children - but I noticed I tend to exaggerate when telling things but I fear they are not interesting enough. But this might be food for another thread, so that here we can stick to intensifiers. 

I'll have a look at the book by Deutscher. Thanks !


----------



## Basaloe

ThomasK said:


> Do you then mean _fiercely_, Elirlandes, as in fiercely good or something the like ?
> 
> 
> Basaloe: can you put that in a sentence ? It seems like a good example...



Well, instead of using the swedish word for "very" you can in reality _always _use the swedish word for carrion/carcass, "as". 

This tasted very good - This tasted carcass good

Its the same with the swedish word for "shit"

This tasted shit good.


----------



## ThomasK

Is this a very recent phenomenon, Basaloe ?


----------



## ahshav

To add a bit regarding the Hebrew, I believe the (grammatically incorrect??) use of the word nora נורא as an ADVERB implying "very" is a recent phenomenon.

e.g. נורא חם לי (i am awfully hot).


----------



## dinji

ThomasK said:


> Is this a very recent phenomenon, Basaloe ?


Definitely the use of _as_, which has still not even spread to Finland. 
_Skit +_ adjective may be a bit older.


----------



## federicoft

ThomasK said:


> I am wondering whether it works in Romanic languages in fact. Can one make sentences with 'terriblement beau' ??? I don't think so but I do not know French that well. Spanish, Italian ?



Yes, you can perfectly say 'terribilmente/tremendamente bello' in Italian too.


----------



## ThomasK

Can you use other 'negative' intensifiers as well, Federicoft ?


----------



## ThomasK

Just wondering: I suddenly come across "doodgraag" as in: "Ik zie je doodgraag" (I love you deadly ???) or as in "doodgraag leven" (to deadly like living/ to live). 

As in English: "deadly serious...".


----------



## Lugubert

ThomasK said:


> Just wondering: I suddenly come across "doodgraag" as in: "Ik zie je doodgraag" (I love you deadly ???) or as in "doodgraag leven" (to deadly like living/ to live).
> 
> As in English: "deadly serious...".


In Swedish, we have less surprisingly _dödstråkigt_ 'deadly boring' (or _mördande tråkigt_, 'murderously boring'). But more on topic, we can also say _dödskul_, 'deadly funny/entertaining'. _Doodgraag_ would match our _dödsgärna_ 'deadly willingly, with deadly pleasure'.


----------



## Arrius

In English we have the positive use of _dead _in _dead simple_. _dead easy_, _dead certain_ (cf. German totsicher) - hence a "dead cert" at the racecourse - as well as the negative _dead wrong_.  _Dead _sometimes has the sense of precision, as in the navigational technique "dead reckoniong", and hence completeness. The cowboy in the infamous limerick is Dead Eye Dick, because he is an excellent marksman who can hit a target _dead centre_, which is positive from his point of view.  My apologies if any of this has already been said.


----------



## ThomasK

No, it has not: you are pointing out something very interesting. 

I'd guess that it has to do with hitting the target and thus causing fatal wounds or something the like. I wonder though whether it is a true intensifier...


----------



## ThomasK

I am picking up this old thread for a second, because I thought of some others, also thanks to www.logosdictionary.org/: 
- _durchaus_: isn't that like 'very' and could it refer to pain somehow (through...) 
- Fin _hyvin_: any pain involved ? 
- Hun _modfelett_: id. ? 
- Pol _bardzo [_no, it is connected with 'soon' or 'short' (_brevis_, in Latin)?]
- Estonian ... [scaringly] : idem (it reminds of the Dutch _hartstikke, heartchokingly_)...


----------



## berndf

ThomasK said:


> - _durchaus_: isn't that like 'very' and could it refer to pain somehow (through...)


This word isn't attested before the 16th century and probably originated in Alemannic dialect meaning _from start to end_, similar to its literal English translation _throughout_. For the benefit of readers who don't speak German: The modern meaning of the word is _well_ as in _this might well be the case_.


----------



## ThomasK

Can I then say that it is some kind of synonym of 'very' (in a negative context)? I suppose: not quite...


----------



## berndf

ThomasK said:


> Can I then say that it is some kind of synonym of 'very' (in a negative context)? I suppose: not quite...


I guess not.


----------



## ThomasK

Well, in Dutch it would be: "Hij was helemaal nuchter", or something the like - and that is pretty close to "very", I think. Do you think I am mistaken?


----------



## berndf

ThomasK said:


> Well, in Dutch it would be: "Hij was helemaal nuchter", or something the like - and that is pretty close to "very", I think. Do you think I am mistaken?


I can't judge. I replied only to _durchaus_.


----------



## Arrius

I don't think I have heard *very sober* except in the sense of _very_ _grave, serious_, *very drunk*, certainly. I would say *quite sober* for *heelemal nuchter*,


----------



## sakvaka

ThomasK said:


> - Fin _hyvin_: any pain involved ?



No pain, unfortunately. Let me list some of the possibilities in Finnish:

_hyvin _- (lit. well)
_todella _- really (lit. truely)
_erittäin _- especially
_erityisen_ - specially
_tavattoman _- unusually
_sangen_ - (mild and very literal expression; I don't know about its etymology)

Expressions that do not belong to standard language but are common in speech:

_tosi - _really (lit. true[ly])
_kauhean _- awfully
_mahdottoman _- impossibly
_älyttömän (järjettömän__)_ - insanely

As you can see, I can find no references to pain, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be some, hidden in the history.


----------



## ThomasK

Well, at least you have negative ones as well, that proves something as well. Thanks !


----------



## drjudyo

2 Colloquial English new-on-the-scene additions to your list: 
1) In Maine and other New England States, it is common to say "wicked" as a positive intensifier, as in "Her mom made wicked good burgers!"
2) In northern California, the adjective is "hella", which used to be "hell of" 
The corresponding sentence would be "Her step-dad's boyfriend made hella good veggie burgers."


----------



## koniecswiata

Instead of being particularly negative, maybe a lot of intensifiers started out due to their "shock value".  In Boston, they use "wicked" as an intensifier.  In Polish, "strasznie" (terribly)--just to add two.


----------



## ThomasK

OK, 'shock value' is an excellent hypothesis, but when in my dialect we say "cruelly good' (without any connotation), then there might have been some shock value, but I think the overall meaning is simply negative. Shock is only one aspect, I think...


----------



## radogost

tom_in_bahia said:


> If "very" is related to "vrai" in French, where did the Czech version, "velmi" come from??
> 
> My reason for asking was that I had (my fault for not looking into it) assumed that very and velmi were some northern European Proto-Germanic word that got erased from German. Now that I know very is linked to Latin, I would like to know where velmi comes from...I know that in Polish it is bardzo. Polish and Czech are related Slavic languages, so who borrowed from whom here?


 
I'll probably disappoint you, but "velmi" in Czech is linked to "velky" ("big"), which exists in pretty much all Slavic languages with the same meaning (velky (Cz.), vel'ky (Slovak), великий (Rus., Ukr.), wielki (Pol.), вялiкi (Byelorus.), velik(i) (Serbo-Croat, Slovene). 
 
It certainly has no connection with northern European roots, since the identical word "veoma" meaning "very" exists in modern Serbo-Croat, which, on the other side, had no physical contacts with northern European languages (velmi (Cz.), veoma (Se-CR.) - the difference in root is phonetical, in Se-Cr. it previously it was "velma", from "veliki" - "big").

Sorry


----------



## koniecswiata

It would not surprise me if the "velky/wielki" (great, big) root is related to the root of German "viele" (many), even in Polish many is "wiele"--also as a prefix "wielo-" (meaning "multi-").  This, of course, is just speculation, but semantically these words run in the same direction.  
Of course, it is established that "very" derives from French "vrai" which is from Latin "veritas".  On the other hand, this grouping is etymologically related to Slavic words for believe/belief "wiara" "vera" (also the name "Vera"), and German for true "wahr"--though this is all through the common IndoEuropean heritage.


----------



## berndf

koniecswiata said:


> It would not surprise me if the "velky/wielki" (great, big) root is related to the root of German "viele" (many), even in Polish many is "wiele"--also as a prefix "wielo-" (meaning "multi-"). This, of course, is just speculation, but semantically these words run in the same direction.


I would be surprised. Germanic initial "f" is often derived from an original "p". "Viel" is probably related to Greek πολυς. Don't be deceived by the spelling with "v". Except in loanwords, "v" is nothing more than a spelling variant of "f" with no phonological or etymological implications.


----------



## koniecswiata

That would seem to be right about the pronunciation of "v" in German, and the F-p connection.  However, sometimes there are words that don't follow the typical patterns, words in which a pattern sound change did not take place, etc... Though, you are probably right.  An example of apparent similarity is English "much" with Spanish "mucho"--no relation.


----------



## sokol

koniecswiata said:


> That would seem to be right about the pronunciation of "v" in German, and the F-p connection.  However, sometimes there are words that don't follow the typical patterns, words in which a pattern sound change did not take place, etc... Though, you are probably right.  An example of apparent similarity is English "much" with Spanish "mucho"--no relation.



Not in this case however, "viel" is very much regular and goes back to IE *p, it is actually a cognate to Greek "poly".


----------



## le petit chevalier

In English nowadays we do this with swear words, even:
e.g. "That was a fucking good movie!" or even things like "It was boring as shit/as hell". Obviously we're not insulting the movie by saying it was "fucking good", and "boring as shit/hell" doesn't make sense literally either.
I think it's just that negative things seem much more intense than positive things-- it's probably more memorable/intense/whatever to meet a burglar than a policeman, for instance.


----------



## ThomasK

You're right - and that is where this thread started.


----------

