Learn English – the difference between ‘was really’ and ‘really was’
grammarword-usage
The animal was really a puma.
The animal really was a puma.
What is the difference between these two sentences?
Best Answer
The animal was really a puma.
I would expect this to be a contradiction to a previous assumption. Something like:
We thought the animal was a big housecat but upon further inspection it was really a puma.
The animal really was a puma.
I would expect this formation when you are contradicting an incorrect disbelief about what the animal was (in other words the initial assumption was correct, but hard to believe):
Fred thought he saw a puma but the group knew pumas were extremely rare where they were. Once they got closer, they realized the animal really was a puma.
The question is broad and depending on the context, the meaning of those sentences drastically change. Since the question is broad, I'll answer that way.
Both the sentences broadly mean the same - you (at some point in time) were present at that place. However, a subtle difference is...
I was there - merely talks about the past event that you were present at that place. I have been there - talks about the past event of you being there but also emphasize that that event has something to do in the present talk/scenario. The current scenario/talk could be the result of you being there.
As per @John's answer, #1 is a fairly unlikely statement. But it would always be understood to mean there was something unusual about his eye, and she was (probably, rudely) staring/gawping at it.
But #2 simply isn't idiomatically credible with at - and although you might occasionally come across She stared him in the eye, the idiomatic standard is She looked him in the eye, as you can see from that NGram. For all practical purposes they both mean the same (she looked directly and intently into his eyes, not just at his face).
So even if you might think you want the "looking intently" connotations of stare rather than the more general-purpose look, it's not really a good idea to couple this with in the eye. That's because failure to use standard phrasing will probably simply distract readers, rather than make them pay attention to your attempt to be more "precise".
Note that to look someone in the eye nearly always implies being honest and/or without fear or shame.
Best Answer
I would expect this to be a contradiction to a previous assumption. Something like:
We thought the animal was a big housecat but upon further inspection it was really a puma.
I would expect this formation when you are contradicting an incorrect disbelief about what the animal was (in other words the initial assumption was correct, but hard to believe):
Fred thought he saw a puma but the group knew pumas were extremely rare where they were. Once they got closer, they realized the animal really was a puma.