A case for adverbs

A couple of weeks ago, on Wed May 12 (okay, not quite a couple of weeks ago, but close enough) we talked about adverbs, those obnoxious words that tie-up language.

Generally (hey look, there's one!) adverbs clog up speech and don't allow for high-quality communication. But adverbs exist in the language, so surely there must be a case for them, right?

Just like any other writing axiom, the "rule" to never use adverbs is more of a suggestion. Sure, adverbs clog up language. And, yes, the English language demands the use of strong nouns and verbs. What if I had used "strongly requests" or "expertly asks for" instead of "demands" in that last sentence? There's something missing in the meaning of what's said.

But, what about verbs that don't have a replacement? "Swim," for example, doesn't have any replacements. When there's someone walking, I can decide to have the skulk, or wander, or stroll, or even run or job instead of walk. All of these verbs illicit a different sort of "walk," a different action unique and separate from walking.

I can't use the same bit of dictionary magic on the verb "swim." I have to use a modifier instead. I could have someone swim quick, or slow, or stealthily, or any number of ways.

What other words out there might not have a replacement with a better inherent definition; one that doesn't need a modifier?