Really real

LLL

Good name!

Just because people use it, doesn't mean it's right! (or rather-correct!)

I would use them interchangeably in colloquial speech. They're not really (real?) proper though.

maybe it's kinda ambidextorous in a back handed sorta way

Yecccch - I hate it!

But I am a curmudgeon on such matters.....mutter, grumble, bah humbug....

It's just plain wrong. Doesn't matter how often you hear it. Wrong is wrong. WRONG. Feh, pooh.

roberta, whilst we may not approve of using the wrong word here & there, it must be said that english has an infinite ability to substitute, shorten, elongate it's words. The phun is finding alternatives to more common words. There are many cases were words are spelt & pronounced differently in the USA, as opposed to the UK. Does anyone take any real notice. I like the fact that the rules can be broken in English.
I will say that many words have been simplified in America. centre becomes center, colour becomes color & so on. Rules ? Schmools

I'm with Roberta (as usual)... it's wrong, it sounds wrong, and anyone who uses it ought to be taken out and ... corrected!

Maybe it's wrong the way you speak, but as long as a group of people can understand what they're saying to each other, they're speaking a mutaully intelligeable, functioning language.

I will confess to using it at times. It seems to add emphasis, at least to my ear.

rufio, your argument seems to say that correct use of the language is not important. How about spelling? Punctuation? I know those who say that as long as the message is understood, the way it's written, or spelled, doesn't matter.

Is intelligibility the only criteria?

Let's hope not or these message boards could become overrun with "txtspeak"

ur my m8 u r.

Arrrggghhh!!!!

Laptop - running for the hills!

Hey, personally, I think a usage being informal doesn't mean being incorrect (as well as being correct -- it is just "informal" )

Some Linguists' opinions:

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
real
Function: adverb
: VERY <he was real cool -- H. M. McLuhan>
usage Most handbooks consider the adverb real to be informal and more suitable to speech than writing. Our evidence shows these observations to be true in the main, but real is becoming more common in writing of an informal, conversational style. It is used as an intensifier only and is not interchangeable with really except in that use.

**************
(From AHD)
real
adv. Informal
Very:
I'm real sorry about that.

****************
From Cambridge Advanced Learner Dictionary:
real
adverb MAINLY US INFORMAL
very:
I like this homemade lemonade, it's real good!
It's real easy to do.

***********
Kenneth G. Wilson (1923-). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.

real (adv., intensifier), really (adv.)

It is quite clear that the adverbs real and really are not interchangeable: a real good time (simply "very good") and a really good time ("unquestionably good") are not the same thing. Real is in fact either an adjective (a real blizzard) or an intensifier (a real bad cold). As an adjective it is of course Standard, but the intensifier is Intimate or Casual at best, and most Standard users consider it Nonstandard and characteristic of Common or Vulgar English. It does however have wide Conversational use, and writers frequently adopt it as another evidence of the sound of living speech.
Really is the Standard adverb, and the difference between the intensifier and the adverb is grammatical and occasionally semantic: He is a really distinguished man could mean either that he is very distinguished or that his distinction is genuine, not doubtful. He is a real distinguished man means just that he is very distinguished; no question has been raised or answered about whether the distinction is there or not?-real is just an effort to underscore its presence, unless intonation or punctuation make it unquestionably an adjective.

http://www.bartleby.com/68/98/4998.html

I admit to being a lot looser with spoken English than I am with the written language. And looser still with very informal spoken English. However, there are some things that hit my ear like nails scratching their way down a blackboard. This is one of those things.

Rufio, I agree that being understood is the essence of language and communication. And I would certainly understand what someone was saying if he or she said, "That was real good." However, I would be distracted by the usage. And my attention, even for a split second, would be on how something was said rather than on what was said. Doesn't that interfere with communication? Doesn't that draw one's attention away from the meaning? If the same person said, "That was really good," my attention would remain focused. Communication would continue uninterrupted. Isn't that better communication?

Tastes differ, Roberta.
You have a good taste in linguistics, whilst there are as many as 60 million functionary illiteracies in America who used to speak informal English. Communication with them might hurt your ears. But, for them, speaking in the way of informal English is comfortable.
So you'd better communicate with "elite class in linguistics", and ignore what the illiteracies speak, unless they want you teach them.

That would mean that how you say something is only important if you want to be classified as an illiterate, and be ignored?

Oristar, You misunderstand me. My entire family was ill-educated and spoke less than ideal English. I listened to each of them with the attention and respect they deserved. And my informal conversation is very "loose." I'm simply saying that mistakes are a distraction that detract from communication. I'm neither a snob nor an elitist. I have a healthy respect for the written and spoken word, and the power it wields.

BTW, "functional illiterates" is the term you should use.

Roberta, It is absolutely nice that you pay enough attention, and, with sincere respect, to listen to any ordinary person who deserves the dignity. But it just means you respectfully listen to what they say, not to how they say. That is, based on Human Rights and Love, listen to them with respectful manner, while in linguistics, ignore them.

My feelings exactly.

OristarA

Who or what are "functionary illiteracies"?

Do you mean, as Roberta suggests "functional illiterates"

BTW, I'm fascinated by the notion that it's within someone's Human Rights(sic) to be listened to. It strikes me the great right is not to have to listen to.