I don't have any problems. I am well aware of the parts of speech and what each part of speech is used for. I don't know where you are getting the rest of this stuff from, but "very" is clearly an adverb in that use. It needs not be more complicated than that.
If you were that aware - you would understand the problems we have, which you obviously do not.
Again, manners of use are only relevant because of the basic concepts that cause them. Without a consistent relationship between the two, they they have no reason to exist at all - at which point language, itself, no longer exists.
The basic problems we have, are caused by an inconsistent perception of the language that does not reflect the differences in such concepts and the manners of use they enable - meaning our understanding of the rules the language has in governing both is inconsistent - both inaccurate and incomplete.
Unfortunately, such a perception reinforces our description and teaching of language in a manner that merely furthers this perception itself - causing a negative-feedback-loop.
If you do not recognise and understand how and why
adverbs can only be recognised and understood to be caused by the concept of
properties of things of happening, then your understanding of English, either in itself or as an application of language in general, is
flawed.
As I said in a previous part of my blog - there are over 60 basic concepts in the functional taxonomic hierarchy of the English language. If we do not recognise such concepts,
especially when the manner of use they cause must be different from those we currently recognise - e.g. used in syntactic combination with other, different, concepts - then we do not fully know and understand the language at all. Even I cannot give a precise amount, because even I do not know exactly how we wish to recognise and treat every possible concept and manner of use they enable - or even how some of them should be described as they exist within such a hierarchy itself.
If we
refuse to recognise concepts that exist in such a manner, however, then we deserve all the problems we get.
Which is why my blog post this is in reply to, has more questions, and mainly suggested answers, except when they're consistent with the foundations we already have, according to the basic concepts and their manners of use.
Anyone who refuses to consistently recognise, or has a perception inconsistent with, the difference and relationship between semantics and syntactics, can have no consistent understanding of language at all -
ever.
Such is the nature of the problems we have...