It's a good rule of thumb to KISS (keep it short and simple), but it doesn't translate from one short and simplified example to each sentence of a longer text, because sentences aren't wholly individual. Sentences need to work together, in conjunction, because the information content requires a reasonable amount of structural complexity to support the content. Adverbs are very good at that.
I am absoluty not familiar with typed syntax theories or anything really, but I dare say the adverb in the previous sentence modifies at that. At least the parameter is bracketed nicely. Were I to say otherwise that Adverbs are good, it would not be any better now would it? Because the adverb introduces an adverbial clause that modifies the whole preceding text, that is referenced by "at that" in a manner of, err, a fix-point y-combinator!?
On the other hand I am a foreign speaker without good judgement. Consider that good (or happy) itself may be adverbial, Adverbs well support the support.
Good to know: Repition and redundancy can be quite beneficial, and sometimes it's impossible to avoid.
Anyway, kitchen philosophy says that early optimization is the source of all evil (Hoare apud Knuth).
Edit: Another problem of structural support is punctuation
I appreciate your point. I agree that it depends on context. Sometimes I add "very" because I'm trying too hard to "sell" something to my reader. But if I sit back and take a breath... I see that it's unnecessary (and probably counterproductive) to throw so much enthusiasm at them. My writing has generally calmed down (for the better) since I read the blog post that I referenced above.
It's a good rule of thumb to KISS (keep it short and simple), but it doesn't translate from one short and simplified example to each sentence of a longer text, because sentences aren't wholly individual. Sentences need to work together, in conjunction, because the information content requires a reasonable amount of structural complexity to support the content. Adverbs are very good at that.
I am absoluty not familiar with typed syntax theories or anything really, but I dare say the adverb in the previous sentence modifies at that. At least the parameter is bracketed nicely. Were I to say otherwise that Adverbs are good, it would not be any better now would it? Because the adverb introduces an adverbial clause that modifies the whole preceding text, that is referenced by "at that" in a manner of, err, a fix-point y-combinator!?
On the other hand I am a foreign speaker without good judgement. Consider that good (or happy) itself may be adverbial, Adverbs well support the support.
Good to know: Repition and redundancy can be quite beneficial, and sometimes it's impossible to avoid.
Anyway, kitchen philosophy says that early optimization is the source of all evil (Hoare apud Knuth).
Edit: Another problem of structural support is punctuation