# Very fun? Fun as an adjective.



## Akasaka

Hello everyone,
Can I use "very" before "fun"?

The party was very fun.

Which is better, "much fun" or "very fun"?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## tepatria

*Very fun* is one of those banes that haunt teachers. Children use it all the time and eventually I'm sure it will creep into general acceptance. It should be *very much fun*, or *a lot of fun*, but *never very fun*.


----------



## sound shift

_Very fun _is incorrect in my view. I think I would probably say _great fun._


----------



## paul_vicmar

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv98.shtml
You might find some help at the beginning of this page from the BBC.

<<Mod note: This is a BBC learning English page on the use of fun as an adjective, and on the formation of adjectives more generally. >>


----------



## Akasaka

Thank you so very much.
If your child says "very fun", do you tell him or her to say "great fun"?


----------



## fernandotorres

Akasaka said:


> Thank you so very much.
> If your child says "very fun", do you tell him or her to say "great fun"?


Well,if you want a natural manner of saying this,try "I had a great time" or idiomatically speaking"I had a whale of a time"


----------



## sound shift

Yes, I would.


----------



## Akasaka

sound shift said:


> Yes, I would.


Thanks sound shift. I didn't imagine "very fun" is that wrong.


----------



## Loob

Akasaka, remember that "fun" is a noun.

This is why you can say "good fun" or "a lot of fun" but not "very fun".

Loob


----------



## Akasaka

Loob said:


> Akasaka, remember that "fun" is a noun.
> 
> This is why you can say "good fun" or "a lot of fun" but not "very fun".
> 
> Loob


Thanks Loob. Yes, you are right. But doesn't this word look like an adjective, does it?


----------



## Gorgiewave

Akasaka said:


> Thanks Loob. Yes, you are right. But doesn't this word look like an adjective, does it?


fun is a noun.  To have fun.  You couldn´t put to have yellow, tall, smelly, sedentary, oracular or any other adjective there.


----------



## Loob

Akasaka said:


> Thanks Loob. Yes, you are right. But doesn't this word look like an adjective, does it?


 
Yes Akasaka, in some contexts it does look as though it's an adjective.  In "the party was fun", for example, you could replace "fun" with a whole series of adjectives - "great" "boring" "excellent" and so on.  But "fun" is still a noun...

It's just one of those oddities of English, I'm afraid.  

Loob


----------



## ewie

And do please try to remember, dear Akasaka, that
*It was great fun*
and
*It was very funny*
do not mean the same thing, necessarily.


----------



## MagdaDH

I think this accepted adjectivisation of _*fun *_will, eventually, happen. One (very speculative) reason for that is that other adjectives of a similar meaning got hijacked by specifics (_gay _means homosexual, _merry _has green-men-of-the-forest associations or means slightly drunk) etc.


----------



## Blues Piano Man

Akasaka said:


> Thanks Loob. Yes, you are right. But doesn't this word look like an adjective, does it?


Hi Akasaka,
"Fun" can also be used as an adjective. For example:
"That was a fun party."
"We had a fun time last night."

In all the posts so far, though, it is used as a noun.

Blues


----------



## panjandrum

Please see other threads for critical comment on the use of _fun _as an adjective.  
_That was very fun_ can be heard regularly from kids around here.
They grow out of it


----------



## Loob

Blues Piano Man said:


> Hi Akasaka,
> "Fun" can also be used as an adjective. For example:
> "That was a fun party."
> "We had a fun time last night."
> 
> In all the posts so far, though, it is used as a noun.
> 
> Blues


 
Hi Blues

I know the WRF dictionary allows "fun" as an adjective in the sort of phrases you mention.

But personally, I still prefer to see it as a noun.

Nouns often modify other nouns - as in, say, "party animal" or "ghost writer". 

But what's conclusive, for me, is the fact that you can't say: 

"That was a *very *fun party."
"We had a *very* fun time last night."

I recognise there's a degree of circularity in my argument ("you can't say very fun because fun's a noun"/"fun must be a noun because you can't say very fun").

I'll go away now and look up some of those other threads, panj...

Loob


----------



## panjandrum

Loob said:


> [...]
> 
> I'll go away now and look up some of those other threads, panj...
> 
> Loob


I wish you luck.  I know we've discussed this before but I can't find the threads.


----------



## Blues Piano Man

Loob said:


> Hi Blues
> 
> I know the WRF dictionary allows "fun" as an adjective in the sort of phrases you mention.
> 
> But personally, I still prefer to see it as a noun.
> 
> Nouns often modify other nouns - as in, say, "party animal" or "ghost writer".
> 
> But what's conclusive, for me, is the fact that you can't say:
> 
> "That was a *very *fun party."
> "We had a *very* fun time last night."
> 
> I recognise there's a degree of circularity in my argument ("you can't say very fun because fun's a noun"/"fun must be a noun because you can't say very fun").
> 
> I'll go away now and look up some of those other threads, panj...
> 
> Loob


Hmmm...
Circular. 
Okay, Loob -- I can work with that. 

We're having a really fun time, discussing this issue. Can't say "_real_ fun time." 

And "really" is an adverb. So, therefore, Q.E.D., since an adverb can't modify a noun, either "fun" or "fun time" is not a noun and "fun" must be an adjective. And if "fun" is an adjective, we have to say "really fun time."  

Are we having real fun now or what?
Blues


----------



## Diablo919

Being from Ohio, "Very fun" sounds very natural to me... you learn something new every day


----------



## jamesjiao

Remember languages do change over time. The use of the word 'fun' as an adjective has become increasingly accepted. You have expressions like "He's a real fun person to be with" (note the use of 'real' as well, an adjective-turned adverb). However at this point in time, the word 'fun' used in this fashion is still only considered informal.


----------



## Harry Batt

If fun is used as an adjective it would be regarded as informal English speech. In formal writing you would want to employ formal language; eg. enjoyable or pleasurable. Now, you could use very enjoyable or very pleasurable.


----------



## Forero

"Very fun" sounds natural to me too.  I have no qualms about "a (very) fun party", "a (really) fun person to be with", "a (truly) fun night".  Does formal writing have to be serious, with no mention of fun things?


----------



## Blues Piano Man

Harry Batt said:


> If fun is used as an adjective it would be regarded as informal English speech. In formal writing you would want to employ formal language; eg. enjoyable or pleasurable. Now, you could use very enjoyable or very pleasurable.


Hi Harry,
I don't have a strong opinion on this, but here is what Merriam Webster has to say:


> adjective
> circa 1846
> *1*  : providing entertainment, amusement, or enjoyment <a fun party> <a fun person to be with>
> *2*  : full of fun : pleasant <a fun night> <have a fun time>



For myself, I think I would be comfortable using fun as an adjective in just about any written work. Other words could certainly be substituted, such as amusing, enjoyable, entertaining, and others, but I don't think any of them mean exactly the same thing.

Just my two cents worth,
Blues


----------



## Forero

Some adjectives are rather fickle.

The adjectives _alike_, _alive_, and _alone_ work as predicate adjectives, but for some reason they have to lose the _a_- when placed before a noun.  _Fun_ appears to be most workable before a noun and "wants" to become a noncount noun when used in a predicate.

Those _a_- adjectives belong in their own thread, but is it common for an adjective to work only before a noun?


----------



## Harry Batt

Nice analysis Ferero.


----------



## Twoflower

panjandrum said:


> Please see other threads for critical comment on the use of _fun _as an adjective.
> _That was very fun_ can be heard regularly from kids around here.
> They grow out of it



Yes, I agree with Panjandrum, _very fun_ sounds like a childish mistake on this side of the pond, one that is soon grown out of, like "thinked". I can't imagine our Antipodean cousins saying _very fun,_ either.

However, it does somehow sound more natural in a North American accent. In fact, if used intentionally by a European English speaker it would sound like an affectation, trying to sound American, which validates the idea that it is an American formulation.


----------



## Loob

Blues' post 19, jamesjiao's 21, and Forero's 25 have made me do some reflecting (and sent me off to consult some of my reference books).

Here's a quote from an Open University publication _(Describing language, _by Graddol, Cheshire and Swan, p78_):_

_We set up word classes to help in our analysis of syntactic structure, but word classes are not necessarily water-tight categories... The idea that some words are prototypical members of a class while others are more marginal is one way in which we can take account of the indeterminacy which exists in syntax._ 

I was wrong to argue in my previous post that "fun" in "a fun party" could not be an adjective because you couldn't say 'very fun': not all adjectives are gradable ('unique' being one example).

And Blues was right to argue (post 19) that because you could qualify "fun" in "a fun party" with the adverb "really", it was acting as an adjective.

Forero (post 25) highlighted the fact that some adjectives can only be used before nouns and some after copular verbs like BE ("utter" as in "utter nonsense" being an example of the former; and "alive" being an example of the latter).

And jamesjiao (post 21) pointed out, equally wisely, that things change over time.

I'm now persuaded that:

"fun" can be an adjective before a noun
as yet, though, it's still a 'marginal' example of the class
over time, it may move towards becoming a 'prototypical' adjective, able to be used after copular verbs and to be graded &/or given a comparative cross:_funner_) and superlative cross:_funnest_)
mother-tongue English speakers who accept "a very fun party" (more numerous on the other side of the pond??) are perhaps in the vanguard of the drive towards making "fun" a 'prototypical' adjective.
For the moment, though, I would still recommend speakers of English as a second language to use "fun" only as a noun. You can't go wrong that way...

Loob

PS: panj, I couldn't find those previous threads either


----------



## panjandrum

Thank you Loob.
That's a very comprehensive and thoughtful analysis.

Here's one of the threads, found at last.
make something more fun?

Many of the fun (adjective) uses seem quite natural to me, but so far that does not include _very fun_.


----------



## EdisonBhola

Is it wrong to say "very fun"?  Dictionary say "fun" can be an adjective so it should be ok to say very fun.  But a native speaker say it should be "lots of fun".

What do you think?

<< Moderator's note: This thread has been merged with a previous thread on the same topic. Please remember to use the search box at the top of the page to search for existing threads before starting a new thread.>>


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I wouldn't ever say it, Edison, but if you are happy to use 'fun' as an adjective, then I can't see any objection.

Fun is already quite an informal word, and these days 'lots of fun' sounds a strange mixture of registers - it feels like the language of fifty years ago.

The more frequent formal expression is 'great fun'.

I suspect I may be out on a limb about this question.  We shall see.

The ngrams are interesting, suggesting that *very fun* has started to be used quite recently, and that *great fun* has a greater frequency in books than *lots of fun*.  That position might be reversed in speech.


----------



## sound shift

I am another who wouldn't say "very fun". I don't use "fun" as an adjective. Thomas says "great fun" is formal, but I regard it as neutral because "very fun" is not available to me. As far as BrE is concerned, I suspect that "very fun" is used more by those who are a few decades younger than me.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hello Sound Shift,

I should have been clear that I was saying that 'great fun' is more formal than 'lots of fun' and 'very fun'.

I don't regard 'great fun' as particularly formal.  For me it's the most immediately obvious way of expressing the idea.

One can say, of course, 'very great fun', where the _very_ is modifying the _great_, rather than the _fun_.


----------



## EdisonBhola

Thomas Tompion said:


> I wouldn't ever say it, Edison, but if you are happy to use 'fun' as an adjective, then I can't see any objection.
> 
> Fun is already quite an informal word, and these days 'lots of fun' sounds a strange mixture of registers - it feels like the language of fifty years ago.
> 
> The more frequent formal expression is 'great fun'.
> 
> I suspect I may be out on a limb about this question.  We shall see.
> 
> The ngrams are interesting, suggesting that *very fun* has started to be used quite recently, and that *great fun* has a greater frequency in books than *lots of fun*.  That position might be reversed in speech.



What is "out on a limb"?


----------



## sdgraham

EdisonBhola said:


> What is "out on a limb"?



See: 
out on a limb
out on a limb


----------



## EdisonBhola

Thanks sdgraham!


----------



## Miss Julie

I use "*really*" to modify fun. ("_Wow! This roller coaster is really fun!_") Of course, many Americans (and others?) use the grammatically improper "real fun," as well.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Miss Julie said:


> I use "*really*" to modify fun. ("_Wow! This roller coaster is really fun!_") Of course, many Americans (and others?) use the grammatically improper "real fun," as well.


What's grammatically improper about *real fun*, Miss Julie?*  Fun* is a noun and* real* and adjective.

The problem with *very fun* is that *very* is an intensive and you can't use an intensive to modify a noun, usually.


----------



## Miss Julie

Thomas Tompion said:


> What's grammatically improper about *real fun*, Miss Julie?*  Fun* is a noun and* real* and adjective.
> 
> The problem with *very fun* is that *very* is an intensive and you can't use an intensive to modify a noun, usually.



Because if you use "*fun*" as an *adjective* (as I usually do), "*really*" is the adverb that modifies it.


----------



## Einstein

We do talk about a "fun person", meaning a person who is fun to be with. If you think of "fun" as an adjective in this case it may be logical to say a "very fun person" (but I wouldn't say it myself).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Miss Julie said:


> Because if you use "*fun*" as an *adjective* (as I usually do), "*really*" is the adverb that modifies it.


But to call *real fun *grammatically improper, you would have to maintain that_* fun*_ cannot be a noun, wouldn't you?  And I don't think you can be saying that.  Most dictionaries' (including our WR dictionary) sole definition is for the noun.

I worry that you will puzzle learners because you seem to be implying that a '*red house' *(same formula* - adjective noun*) is 'grammatically improper'.


----------



## Miss Julie

Thomas Tompion said:


> But to call *real fun *grammatically improper, you would have to maintain that_* fun*_ cannot be a noun, wouldn't you?  And I don't think you can be saying that.  Most dictionaries' (including our WR dictionary) sole definition is for the noun.
> 
> I worry that you will puzzle learners because you seem to be implying that a '*red house' *(same formula* - adjective noun*) is 'grammatically improper'.



No, I wouldn't have to maintain that fun cannot be a noun. Fun is a noun, verb, AND and adjective, according to dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Miss Julie said:


> No, I wouldn't have to maintain that fun cannot be a noun. Fun is a noun, verb, AND and adjective, according to dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster.


Then I'm lost.  If you agree that it can be a noun, how can *real fun *be 'grammatically improper', as you said in your post #8?

Maybe you're saying that when_* fun*_ is used as an adjective, one can't say *real fun*, that we can't say a *real fun day*?  The problem is that doesn't seem to me worse that a *fun day*, and I like it better than a *really fun day*.


----------



## Parla

In my opinion, "This is fun!" is fine, as are "This is such fun!" and "It was a fun party!" and "She's a really fun person."

Then there are "This is so fun!" and "...very fun". Many Americans use fun this way. It's a recent phenomenon, and in my view it's a horrible misuse of the language. 

I can't give a technical explanation of my opinion. Perhaps someone else can.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Yes, you can, Parla -* this is so fun* is treating* fun* as an adjective (you'd be happy with _this is so exciting_, but not with_ this is so dog_, wouldn't you?).  Yet you accept its use as an adjective in *It was a fun party*.

I expect this is all partly a matter of what you are used to hearing people say.  The first time they make the mistake it sounds dreadful; then, later, you get used to it and the abuse starts to become accepted.


----------



## Miss Julie

Thomas Tompion said:


> Then I'm lost.  If you agree that it can be a noun, how can *real fun *be 'grammatically improper', as you said in your post #8?



Because, _as I said in post #10_, if you use it as an adjective--which *IS* possible--then "real" would be incorrect. It's just a different (and _not wrong_) interpretation; no need to make such a big deal out of it.

I stand by my explanation, and I'm not going to argue about it any further.


----------



## lucas-sp

Miss Julie said:


> Because, _as I said in post #10_, if you use it as an adjective--which *IS* possible--then "real" would be incorrect. It's just a different (and _not wrong_) interpretation; no need to make such a big deal out of it.
> 
> I stand by my explanation, and I'm not going to argue about it any further.


Just to devil's advocate a bit around here - couldn't we just say that "real" has become an adverb, just as "fun" has become an adjective? It doesn't just collocate with adjectival "fun":

They make some real good nachos there.
He's a real nice guy when you get to know him.
I got into a real big mess of trouble for doing that.

I understand what Julie is arguing. She's not talking about the noun phrase "real fun," but about the adjectival phrase.


----------



## George French

Whether "very fun" is correct or not it just jars. I just could not say it... 

GF..

I have just tried saying it: I did not understand what I was saying. Maybe the grammar is ok; but, I hope, I will forget ever reading "very fun".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm disappointed to read that the COCA has some examples of real fun being used as an adjectival phrase, eg. - Mr-WILLIAMS: You know, that song - it's a *real* *fun* song. I wanted to make a real fun song on this CD... _ NPR__Saturday


----------



## Cagey

<< Moderator's note:
This thread has been merged with an earlier thread.  Please read from the top. >>


----------



## EdisonBhola

Akasaka said:


> Thanks Loob. Yes, you are right. But doesn't this word look like an adjective, does it?


I agree with you, but even Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries now accept "fun" as an adjective, with additional note saying it's informal and Anerican usage. I guess it will one day become widely accepted to say "very fun".


----------



## EdisonBhola

Would you all agree that it's correct to say "playing basketball *is* *great fun*"?


----------



## Einstein

EdisonBhola said:


> Would you all agree that it's correct to say "playing basketball *is* *great fun*"?


Yes, but in this case "fun" is a noun (and qualified by the adjective "great").


----------

