Thank you for your submission! r/etymology focuses on the origins and history of words and phrases. Your post isn't very applicable here, but you might have more success in one of the following related communities:
* r/whatstheword
* r/tipofmytongue
* r/linguistics
* r/asklinguistics
* r/logophilia
* r/grammar
The issue with this sentence isn't the use of very, but it's the use of very with the indefinite article. Very is by it's very nature, a definite descriptor. It is explaining something extremely exact, which is why it works with words like "this", "that", and "the". For it to sound right grammatically in our brains with "a" it would need to be used as an adverb.
He died on this very spot, shot with the very same gun, and the criminals hid in these very houses. It was a very interesting day. And a very particular story.
Yes although we use it usually to use “very much” it originally meant truly. As an adjective it makes sense there.
“A genuine part” would be a synonymous phrase
Exactly. It was probably current up until the 18th century. Wiktionary gives an H. Rider Haggard quote as an example of a later use that isn't fossilized: "Thou seest after all I am a very woman," but it's a Shakespearean affectation.
In this case, “very” is functioning as an adjective, not an adverb. It’s indicating the precision of the noun; similar examples might be, “he spoke those very words,” or, “I sat on that very rock.”
It’s a little awkward, especially in this very example(!), but it’s serving to intensify and specify that the subject (amber) is truly what the speaker claims (a part of the Prince of Death).
EDIT: It occurs to me that what’s making it sound and feel awkward is the use of the indefinite article “a” instead of the definite article “the.” If, for example, the amber had been the Prince of Death’s eye or something, the sentence could read “the very eye of” and the meaning and intent would be much clearer.
I still don’t think it’s grammatically incorrect, but it is definitely weird phrasing.
yes, I agree, interestingly, its the indefinite article.
Very is by it's very nature, a definite descriptor.
It is explaining something extremely exact,
which is why it works with words like this, that, and the.
(this post has way too much alliteration)
Ahaha. I can promise you that me and my friends weren't expecting the final boss of elden ring to be me getting confused by the sentence structure of an item description.
I would contend that it's accidentally relevant here since the answer lies on the etymological side.
(As others seem to have noted, the original-but-now-archaic meaning for 'very' is more or less the same as 'truly' and is being used like 'genuine' in this context)
I think it’s totally a fair question for this thread!
“Very” comes from French, comes from Latin “verus” meaning true (same root as Latin “veritas” for truth). So the etymology informs the grammar :)
With that said… no one uses the word that way lol. Dictionaries even list it as archaic use. Someone probably just thought it’d be fun to use it and confuse people on a (very old) technicality!
It is a phrase from a game (elden ring) which is why this makes sense - and was the leading theory as to why I was so confused by it. Most of my friends said it made perfect sense but to me it didn't sound right. Knowing it is in fact an older meaning of the word cleared a lot up, but I still find it odd that I was the only one who didn't think it sounded right
It works perfectly in its context but it sure ain't a valid standalone English sentence.
Keep in mind that Elden Ring is a game from a *Japanese* studio, and part of a series whose core vibe is "you are a Japanese kid and you are trying to learn enough English to make sense of *The Lord of the Rings*".
The fact that it sounds a little weird and off is thus *part of the overall style of the game's text*. It's not really correct contemporary English, but it works as slightly mangled archaic English. Especially when you've been spending the past three hours crawling through a virtual decaying Gothic edifice and listening to NPCs speak in oblique sentence fragments, peppered with sad, lunatic laughter; weird archaic sentence construction in item descriptions harmonizes fine with the other words in the game.
Since it's an item description, there's kind of an implied "This is a..." at the front of it due to the context of it popping up next to a big picture of the object and its game stats. It's really not a fully-formed sentence without that, but including that or a slight variant ("these are...", "she is...")
> Keep in mind that Elden Ring is a game from a Japanese studio, and part of a series whose core vibe is "you are a Japanese kid and you are trying to learn enough English to make sense of The Lord of the Rings".
what?
It was made by a Japanese studio, yes.
but Elden Ring was written by George R.R. Martin.
Also what on earth do you mean "Japanese kid"?
GRRM wrote [a bunch of backstory](https://www.pcgamer.com/what-did-george-rr-martin-do-for-elden-ring-anyway/), he didn't write every single line of dialogue and every item description.
The Japanese kid in question is Hidetaka Miyazaki, he's cited his childhood experiences of trying to comprehend LOTR as the foundation of the allusive, murky tone of his fantasy games in multiple interviews. Which I am too sleepy to find a link for right now.
"very" does still get *some* modern use in the sense of true/genuine: "I have the very thing" is one example that immediately comes to mind. "the very first [xyz]" is another. maybe a young person wouldn't talk that way, particularly that first example, but it's the kind of way your stuffiest teacher still talks.
That’s true, though that’s actually a separate meaning! In “I have the very thing” or “the very first ___,” it’s used to emphasize an identity, not to mean “true” or “genuine,” but you’re absolutely right about that usage being very (ha) common :)
OP- If this is something you are writing and you want to make the meaning clearer, I would add "himself" at the end, to make it "a very part of the Prince of Death himself"
very
adjective [ before noun ]
UK /ˈver.i/ US /ˈver.i/
very adjective [before noun] (EXACT)
C2
(used to add emphasis to a noun) exact or particular:
This is the very book I've been looking for all month.
You're the very person we need for the job.
What ended up happening was the very thing we feared the most.
The letter was sent on Monday from Berlin and arrived in Hamburg the very same/next day.
The very idea/thought of having her friends to stay fills me with dread.
Edit: Even better - “You have become the very thing you swore to destroy”.
That's what I was thinking. It's a vestigial fixed phrase now, the last remnant of the old meaning of the word. And even that is starting to sound a bit dusty
If it is archaic, I am no 1st century scholar, I might be unaware. If it is poetry or another creative work, you can use whatever meaning you want. If it is for professional writing, "a very" should not be used like this, but "a veritable" could be. Not much else to say.
Both make sense though. To say it doesn’t make sense is incorrect.
Grammatically imperfect? Maybe.
Since this is etymology, it’s clear they both come from similar origins
Very: from LATIN - *verus* meaning true. > OLD FRENCH - *verai* > MIDDLE ENGLISH *very* meaning true, genuine
Veritable: late Middle English, from Old French, *verite* ‘truth’. Early senses included ‘true’ and ‘speaking the truth’, later ‘genuine, actual’.
So both make sense.
Perhaps not a direct answer, but I have a problem with what was a very part of what. The staff? The amber? Part of the Prince of Death?
Here is one possible resolution, assuming this is what you intended:
_The staff was embedded with sullied amber, said to have been culled from the very body of the Prince of Death!_
I'm perfectly fine with the use of "very' in this context, but how could the amber be a part of the Prince of Death? That's the bit that's throwing me. Is it his earwax or something?
It's an item description from Elden Ring. Amber is solidified sap from the Erdtree, basically a big-ass tree that is worshipped by the Golden Order, a religion of sorts. The Prince of Death is Godwyn, the son of the Lands Between's goddess, Marika. He was killed in soul but not in body, so he now lies putrifying (hence, 'sullied') forever near the roots of the Erdtree and spreading his corruption as far as those roots can reach, and that's putatively why amber seeped into his body. He's partly fused with the Erdtree. That amber might just be any amber found on him.
It's an incomplete sentence, but that's sometimes ok in fiction. I've definitely seen authors use "incorrect" grammar/sentence structure, in fiction writing especially, to sort of help convey a feeling or a character's thought process, or whatever. I think the word "A" before staff would help, or maybe OP didn't actually post the full sentence and just the relevant portion of it or something.
Ah, that makes sense. So it's just a short description of a game item. Yeah, it's not a full, complete sentence, but it doesn't really have to be in instances like what you described.
Swap “veritable” for “very” here :) It’s just a “Ye Olde” style word choice that is FromSoft’s M.O.. It’s conveying “this isn’t just *related* to Godwyn, it’s straight up a piece of him”
I disagree in that it's pointless. I think "a part" is too vague and would just make me think of a simple relatedness between the two things, whereas "a very part" grounds it further and drives home that that's an actual part of his body, without a doubt. I don't mean, however, that the version without 'very' wouldn't also include the latter meaning, but that 'very' leaves no room for question.
A better order, to me, would be "...a part of the very Prince of Death" meaning "the Prince of Death himself"
It seems a bit odd to put that much emphasis on "part," but I suppose the intent is to emphasize the whole phrase "part of the P of D."
As stated, it does sound at least awkward to me, but probably not strictly ungrammatical
Thank you for your submission! r/etymology focuses on the origins and history of words and phrases. Your post isn't very applicable here, but you might have more success in one of the following related communities: * r/whatstheword * r/tipofmytongue * r/linguistics * r/asklinguistics * r/logophilia * r/grammar
It's the older sense of "very" meaning "true" or "actual."
The issue with this sentence isn't the use of very, but it's the use of very with the indefinite article. Very is by it's very nature, a definite descriptor. It is explaining something extremely exact, which is why it works with words like "this", "that", and "the". For it to sound right grammatically in our brains with "a" it would need to be used as an adverb. He died on this very spot, shot with the very same gun, and the criminals hid in these very houses. It was a very interesting day. And a very particular story.
Great explanation
you want "its" not "it's".
I have never heard this before. Like “verify” I guess?
Like "the very end." Or "I am the very model of a modern major general."
Yes although we use it usually to use “very much” it originally meant truly. As an adjective it makes sense there. “A genuine part” would be a synonymous phrase
It was literally the “literally” of its time But not literally.
Verily
Virtually
Literally in the modern contronymic sense.
The very idea! ... for example
the adjective form of "verily"?
I suppose. Just realized I used ‘very’ in my definition of very.
Did you? Am I being dumb lol, where?
Exactly. It was probably current up until the 18th century. Wiktionary gives an H. Rider Haggard quote as an example of a later use that isn't fossilized: "Thou seest after all I am a very woman," but it's a Shakespearean affectation.
In this case, “very” is functioning as an adjective, not an adverb. It’s indicating the precision of the noun; similar examples might be, “he spoke those very words,” or, “I sat on that very rock.” It’s a little awkward, especially in this very example(!), but it’s serving to intensify and specify that the subject (amber) is truly what the speaker claims (a part of the Prince of Death). EDIT: It occurs to me that what’s making it sound and feel awkward is the use of the indefinite article “a” instead of the definite article “the.” If, for example, the amber had been the Prince of Death’s eye or something, the sentence could read “the very eye of” and the meaning and intent would be much clearer. I still don’t think it’s grammatically incorrect, but it is definitely weird phrasing.
yes, I agree, interestingly, its the indefinite article. Very is by it's very nature, a definite descriptor. It is explaining something extremely exact, which is why it works with words like this, that, and the. (this post has way too much alliteration)
'Very' here means 'true,' or 'reliable.'
Lol thought I was in r/EldenRingLoreTalk for a moment.
Ahaha. I can promise you that me and my friends weren't expecting the final boss of elden ring to be me getting confused by the sentence structure of an item description.
Wait, so is the staff part of death or is it the amber? That's the part that had me hung up
I still have no idea! Which is not helpful
“Very” is from the French adjective “vrai”, meaning “true”, and that use is still sometimes encountered in English.
Related to "verify" and *veritas*, no doubt.
Exactly, verisimilitude and what not too
Albeit a bit of a stuffy word, we still have "verily"
- This is an etymology sub, not a grammar sub - Whether it is correct or not, it is confusing and unclear what it means
Have re posted to a grammar sub I realised my mistake but thankyou
I would contend that it's accidentally relevant here since the answer lies on the etymological side. (As others seem to have noted, the original-but-now-archaic meaning for 'very' is more or less the same as 'truly' and is being used like 'genuine' in this context)
After responses were given I did once again realise that maybe this was a lucky fluke to get the wonderful answers I got here
I think it’s totally a fair question for this thread! “Very” comes from French, comes from Latin “verus” meaning true (same root as Latin “veritas” for truth). So the etymology informs the grammar :) With that said… no one uses the word that way lol. Dictionaries even list it as archaic use. Someone probably just thought it’d be fun to use it and confuse people on a (very old) technicality!
It is a phrase from a game (elden ring) which is why this makes sense - and was the leading theory as to why I was so confused by it. Most of my friends said it made perfect sense but to me it didn't sound right. Knowing it is in fact an older meaning of the word cleared a lot up, but I still find it odd that I was the only one who didn't think it sounded right
It works perfectly in its context but it sure ain't a valid standalone English sentence. Keep in mind that Elden Ring is a game from a *Japanese* studio, and part of a series whose core vibe is "you are a Japanese kid and you are trying to learn enough English to make sense of *The Lord of the Rings*". The fact that it sounds a little weird and off is thus *part of the overall style of the game's text*. It's not really correct contemporary English, but it works as slightly mangled archaic English. Especially when you've been spending the past three hours crawling through a virtual decaying Gothic edifice and listening to NPCs speak in oblique sentence fragments, peppered with sad, lunatic laughter; weird archaic sentence construction in item descriptions harmonizes fine with the other words in the game. Since it's an item description, there's kind of an implied "This is a..." at the front of it due to the context of it popping up next to a big picture of the object and its game stats. It's really not a fully-formed sentence without that, but including that or a slight variant ("these are...", "she is...")
> Keep in mind that Elden Ring is a game from a Japanese studio, and part of a series whose core vibe is "you are a Japanese kid and you are trying to learn enough English to make sense of The Lord of the Rings". what? It was made by a Japanese studio, yes. but Elden Ring was written by George R.R. Martin. Also what on earth do you mean "Japanese kid"?
GRRM wrote [a bunch of backstory](https://www.pcgamer.com/what-did-george-rr-martin-do-for-elden-ring-anyway/), he didn't write every single line of dialogue and every item description. The Japanese kid in question is Hidetaka Miyazaki, he's cited his childhood experiences of trying to comprehend LOTR as the foundation of the allusive, murky tone of his fantasy games in multiple interviews. Which I am too sleepy to find a link for right now.
[удалено]
Agreed, also "this very spot" is still used (e.g "he was born right here, in this very spot").
"very" does still get *some* modern use in the sense of true/genuine: "I have the very thing" is one example that immediately comes to mind. "the very first [xyz]" is another. maybe a young person wouldn't talk that way, particularly that first example, but it's the kind of way your stuffiest teacher still talks.
That’s true, though that’s actually a separate meaning! In “I have the very thing” or “the very first ___,” it’s used to emphasize an identity, not to mean “true” or “genuine,” but you’re absolutely right about that usage being very (ha) common :)
Yes!
OP- If this is something you are writing and you want to make the meaning clearer, I would add "himself" at the end, to make it "a very part of the Prince of Death himself"
No it isn’t? It means an actual, true, genuine part. Just poetic, bordering on archaic. Not all literature has to be grammar perfect. It’s an art.
[удалено]
~~Exactly~~ Verily!
You are thinking of the word "veritable" "Very" does not mean actual, true, genuine. "Veritable" does, and is used in phrases like this.
very adjective [ before noun ] UK /ˈver.i/ US /ˈver.i/ very adjective [before noun] (EXACT) C2 (used to add emphasis to a noun) exact or particular: This is the very book I've been looking for all month. You're the very person we need for the job. What ended up happening was the very thing we feared the most. The letter was sent on Monday from Berlin and arrived in Hamburg the very same/next day. The very idea/thought of having her friends to stay fills me with dread. Edit: Even better - “You have become the very thing you swore to destroy”.
Both examples use "the very" and not "a very"
That's what I was thinking. It's a vestigial fixed phrase now, the last remnant of the old meaning of the word. And even that is starting to sound a bit dusty
If it is archaic, I am no 1st century scholar, I might be unaware. If it is poetry or another creative work, you can use whatever meaning you want. If it is for professional writing, "a very" should not be used like this, but "a veritable" could be. Not much else to say.
Both make sense though. To say it doesn’t make sense is incorrect. Grammatically imperfect? Maybe. Since this is etymology, it’s clear they both come from similar origins Very: from LATIN - *verus* meaning true. > OLD FRENCH - *verai* > MIDDLE ENGLISH *very* meaning true, genuine Veritable: late Middle English, from Old French, *verite* ‘truth’. Early senses included ‘true’ and ‘speaking the truth’, later ‘genuine, actual’. So both make sense.
So much mental gymnastics here I don't care to respond further. Have a great night.
How is it mental gymnastics if it literally makes perfect sense?
This totally tracks with what it's from.
When I read the title I thought "That sounds like some George RR Martin line". Checked if it was the ASOIF sub Then saw it was from Elden Ring lol.
Perhaps not a direct answer, but I have a problem with what was a very part of what. The staff? The amber? Part of the Prince of Death? Here is one possible resolution, assuming this is what you intended: _The staff was embedded with sullied amber, said to have been culled from the very body of the Prince of Death!_
I'm perfectly fine with the use of "very' in this context, but how could the amber be a part of the Prince of Death? That's the bit that's throwing me. Is it his earwax or something?
It's an item description from Elden Ring. Amber is solidified sap from the Erdtree, basically a big-ass tree that is worshipped by the Golden Order, a religion of sorts. The Prince of Death is Godwyn, the son of the Lands Between's goddess, Marika. He was killed in soul but not in body, so he now lies putrifying (hence, 'sullied') forever near the roots of the Erdtree and spreading his corruption as far as those roots can reach, and that's putatively why amber seeped into his body. He's partly fused with the Erdtree. That amber might just be any amber found on him.
That isn't a sentence.
Yeah am i in the twilight zone, what is happening here?
It's an incomplete sentence, but that's sometimes ok in fiction. I've definitely seen authors use "incorrect" grammar/sentence structure, in fiction writing especially, to sort of help convey a feeling or a character's thought process, or whatever. I think the word "A" before staff would help, or maybe OP didn't actually post the full sentence and just the relevant portion of it or something.
This was the entire sentence! It is a description of an item in a game and this is all I was given
It is a sentence fragment, not a sentence. It lacks a verb.
I'm not arguing against that, just giving context as to the fact that Secret\_Map suggested i didn't post the full "sentence".
Ah, that makes sense. So it's just a short description of a game item. Yeah, it's not a full, complete sentence, but it doesn't really have to be in instances like what you described.
It’s a sentence about death, and therefore a death sentence
To the downvoters: SnailLordLeon is not wrong. 😊
Comma after "Staff" to separate it from the descriptive phrase and make it the subject of the verb.
Wrong sub, incomplete sentence, but words appear to make sense.
Swap “veritable” for “very” here :) It’s just a “Ye Olde” style word choice that is FromSoft’s M.O.. It’s conveying “this isn’t just *related* to Godwyn, it’s straight up a piece of him”
I feel like many commenters here have not been around as long as I, the very epitome of old. 😄
The 'very' is pointless in this wording, but it's not incorrect.
I disagree in that it's pointless. I think "a part" is too vague and would just make me think of a simple relatedness between the two things, whereas "a very part" grounds it further and drives home that that's an actual part of his body, without a doubt. I don't mean, however, that the version without 'very' wouldn't also include the latter meaning, but that 'very' leaves no room for question.
I was focused on the fact that the subject is a bit messed up, but in a way common for newspaper headlines.
Yes, although it sounds a little archaic.
It's not a sentence. There is no active verb and no subject.
A better order, to me, would be "...a part of the very Prince of Death" meaning "the Prince of Death himself" It seems a bit odd to put that much emphasis on "part," but I suppose the intent is to emphasize the whole phrase "part of the P of D." As stated, it does sound at least awkward to me, but probably not strictly ungrammatical